# Benchmark Competition: Shadow of the Tomb Raider



## Simzak

Not a record breaking run or anything but I think this is really good for an average 10900k


RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUSimzak34110900KMSI Gaming Carbon5200DDR4Gskill F4-3600C16D-32GTRS440016-16-16-28-2886900XT


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Simzak said:


> Not a record breaking run or anything but I think this is really good for an average 10900k
> 
> 
> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUSimzak34110900KMSI Gaming Carbon5200DDR4Gskill F4-3600C16D-32GTRS440016-16-16-28-2886900XT
> 
> View attachment 2548440


341 is fantastic for any CPU, let alone one that’s 2 years old. With cold water and 5.5 all core you would probably hit 355+.

I see you are using the latest non-beta build. I just tested this build and got 372 fps so it seems build version doesn’t matter anymore.


----------



## xmanrigger

Why not use the demo? That is all I have.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

xmanrigger said:


> Why not use the demo? That is all I have.


The demo is not up to date with recent optimizations and your framerate would be much lower than on the full version.


----------



## JSHamlet234

Deleted


----------



## domdtxdissar

My old benchrun:


RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUDomdtxdissar3505950XUnify X MAX~5000DDR4G.Skill F4-4000C14-16GTZR380013-14-12-22-34-2243090










Recorded video of the run and settings:





_edit_ changed my table from 353fps to 350fps as i first thought we were ranking *cpu* average fps. (was running gfx at stock clocks for this bench)


----------



## geriatricpollywog

JSHamlet234 said:


> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUJSHamlet2342445960XASUS X99-A4500DDR4G.Skill F4-3733C17-8GTZSW333313-13-13-26-2342X 980TI
> 
> EDIT: It looks like I forgot to turn off TAA and enable exclusive fullscreen. I doubt either of those would significantly affect the CPU Game numbers.
> View attachment 2548480


The screenshot shows 213 but the table says 244


----------



## JSHamlet234

geriatricpollywog said:


> The screenshot shows 213 but the table says 244


I thought we were using CPU Game. In any event, I'll run it again with the correct settings and re-submit.



RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUJSHamlet2342495960XASUS X99-A4625DDR4G.Skill F4-3733C17-8GTZSW333313-13-13-26-2342X 980TI


----------



## 8051

@JSHamlet234 

Can U show your SLI benchmark run as well? If possible could you please run the SLI benchmark at both 1080p and 1440p with maxed graphics settings and show us the results?


----------



## JSHamlet234

8051 said:


> Can U show your SLI benchmark run as well? If possible could you please run the SLI benchmark at both 1080p and 1440p with maxed graphics settings and show us the results?


That run was with SLI enabled. I'll run it at the highest preset and post results later on. It should be around 150fps at 1080P and 100fps at 1440P.


----------



## 8051

JSHamlet234 said:


> That run was with SLI enabled. I'll run it at the highest preset and post results later on. It should be around 150fps at 1080P and 100fps at 1440P.


Could you also please run a 4K benchmark? Do you ever have any lack of VRAM problems cropping up?

Double thumbs up for sticking with SLI!


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Please reserve the thread for benchmark results and PM eachother for other topics.


----------



## Taraquin

Suggestion: If you want to compare DDR4 vs DDR5 use the CPU Game avg\min, not total avg as this is much more dependent on what GPU you use  If you look at my result you see that you need a 3080+ GPU to avoid being GPU bound. I can re-run with TAA disabled later and OC GPU if total avg fps is what you want


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Taraquin said:


> View attachment 2548624
> 
> 
> Suggestion: If you want to compare DDR4 vs DDR5 use the CPU Game avg\min, not total avg as this is much more dependent on what GPU you use  If you look at my result you see that you need a 3080+ GPU to avoid being GPU bound. I can re-run with TAA disabled later and OC GPU if total avg fps is what you want


Average CPU Render doesn't 100% correlate with better average FPS when there is no GPU limit. Here my average CPU render is higher than my run in the original post, but average FPS is lower. My CPU and ram were clocked higher in the original post.

And yes, please run with TAA disabled if you want me to add results to the table. I want to keep the settings constant.


----------



## Taraquin

geriatricpollywog said:


> Average CPU Render doesn't 100% correlate with better average FPS when there is no GPU limit. Here my average CPU render is higher than my run in the original post, but average FPS is lower. My CPU and ram were clocked higher in the original post.
> 
> And yes, please run with TAA disabled if you want me to add results to the table. I want to keep the settings constant.
> 
> View attachment 2548625


I said CPU Game, not CPU render. Look at your CPU Game: 345fps, look at your avg fps: 345fps  CPU Game is the fps the CPU actually produces, CPU Render is background processes etc and don`t matter for avg fps. If GPU Bound is 0% then CPU Game avg will be identical to avg fps. If partly GPU bound then avg fps will always be below CPU Game avg  If I lower my resolution more I can get 267fps avg if my GPU Bound drops to 0%.

You should decide if you want this to be a CPU test or GPU test. I`m down with both, but reading your opening post it seems like you want to investigate CPU\ram-performance, and then you should use CPU Game avg, not total avg fps as the latter is largely impacted by your GPU unless you have rtx 3080+.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Taraquin said:


> I said CPU Game, not CPU render. Look at your CPU Game: 345fps, look at your avg fps: 345fps  CPU Game is the fps the CPU actually produces, CPU Render is background processes etc and don`t matter for avg fps. If GPU Bound is 0% then CPU Game avg will be identical to avg fps. If partly GPU bound then avg fps will always be below CPU Game avg  If I lower my resolution more I can get 267fps avg if my GPU Bound drops to 0%.
> 
> You should decide if you want this to be a CPU test or GPU test. I`m down with both, but reading your opening post it seems like you want to investigate CPU\ram-performance, and then you should use CPU Game avg, not total avg fps as the latter is largely impacted by your GPU unless you have rtx 3080+.


Ah I see. In the 10900K/11900K/12900K threads, we frequently posted screenshots and compared average FPS, but we all had 3090s.

I'll create a separate ranking for CPU game. Good suggestion!


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Taraquin said:


> I said CPU Game, not CPU render. Look at your CPU Game: 345fps, look at your avg fps: 345fps  CPU Game is the fps the CPU actually produces, CPU Render is background processes etc and don`t matter for avg fps. If GPU Bound is 0% then CPU Game avg will be identical to avg fps. If partly GPU bound then avg fps will always be below CPU Game avg  If I lower my resolution more I can get 267fps avg if my GPU Bound drops to 0%.
> 
> You should decide if you want this to be a CPU test or GPU test. I`m down with both, but reading your opening post it seems like you want to investigate CPU\ram-performance, and then you should use CPU Game avg, not total avg fps as the latter is largely impacted by your GPU unless you have rtx 3080+.


Can you provide system info for table?


----------



## Taraquin

geriatricpollywog said:


> Can you provide system info for table?


I can rerun without TAA, gets better score, but you can set this for now 


RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUTaraquin214\2675600XGB B550m S2H~4600DDR4Patriot Viper 4400cl19 2x8400016-16-16-29-45-2803060ti


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Taraquin said:


> I can rerun without TAA, gets better score, but you can set this for now
> 
> 
> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUTaraquin214\2675600XGB B550m S2H~4600DDR4Patriot Viper 4400cl19 2x8400016-16-16-29-45-2803060ti


No, need same settings


----------



## kryptonfly

Totally agreed with @Taraquin, we always use CPU game avg to check CPU OC... Average FPS = CPU game AVG only when GPU bound = 0% that means GPU doesn't interfere. I'm GPU bound with my 3090 and so all GPUs below 3090 will show lower fps. If you want to compare DDR4/DDR5, you only need CPU game avg fps.

Just an example (I don't need to be in the table because I don't have the 12900k anymore) :


----------



## techenth

Simzak said:


> Not a record breaking run or anything but I think this is really good for an average 10900k
> 
> 
> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUSimzak34110900KMSI Gaming Carbon5200DDR4Gskill F4-3600C16D-32GTRS440016-16-16-28-2886900XT


Not entirely sure how this is possible. Really in awe and wonder. Currently stuck with 285 on 10900k 5.1/4.8 4400C16.


----------



## Taraquin

RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUTaraquin250\2655600XGB B550m S2H~4600DDR4Patriot Viper 4400cl19 2x8400016-16-16-29-45-2803060ti


----------



## domdtxdissar

techenth said:


> Not entirely sure how this is possible. Really in awe and wonder. Currently stuck with 285 on 10900k 5.1/4.8 4400C16.


Yeah i agree, for a 10900K that really is record breaking.
Have never seen any gen10's this high, even those who run higher cpu clockspeeds and faster memory could not break 300 cpu game fps..

*Maybe its all down to game version and the skylake architecture is benefiting much more from this change then gen11/12 and Zen3.. (?)*

Some examples of gen10 scores in previous game-version:


> 5,5 ht off/5,2ring/4700c17











@Thanh Nguyen's 10900k @ 5.6ghz something something i think?








Fastest rocket lake ive seen, @sugi0lover


> CPU : [email protected] (SP89)
> Cache : 4802Mhz
> Memory OC : 3950Mhz-13-13-13-14-215-2T (1:1)
> M/B : ASUS ROG MAXIMUS XIII APEX (BIOS : 1102)
> Memory : G.SKILL Trident Z Royal 32GB (2 x 16GB) (F4-4000C14D-32GTRG)
> Voltages (Bios) : CPU 1.420v / RAM 1.610v / SA 1.440v / Mem OC IO 1.420v / vppddr 2.485v












_edit_
My old version 298.0_64 score
5950x = 314 cpu game fps


----------



## Taraquin

domdtxdissar said:


> Yeah i agree, for a 10900K that really is record breaking.
> Have never seen any gen10's this high, even those who run higher cpu clockspeeds and faster memory..


Maybe really high ringbus oc + very tight subs (rtl+iol etc) and clean win install?


----------



## techenth

RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUtechenth30110900KMSI Tomahawk5300DDR4Gskill F4-4266C17D-32GTZRB440016-17-17-36-3203080


----------



## geriatricpollywog

techenth said:


> 5.2/4.9 4400 16-17-17-36-320
> 
> View attachment 2548679


Please add full specs so I can fill out the table.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

techenth said:


> Not entirely sure how this is possible. Really in awe and wonder. Currently stuck with 285 on 10900k 5.1/4.8 4400C16.





domdtxdissar said:


> Yeah i agree, for a 10900K that really is record breaking.
> Have never seen any gen10's this high, even those who run higher cpu clockspeeds and faster memory could not break 300 cpu game fps..
> 
> *Maybe its all down to game version and the skylake architecture is benefiting much more from this change then gen11/12 and Zen3.. (?)*
> 
> Some examples of gen10 scores in previous game-version:
> 
> View attachment 2548667
> 
> @Thanh Nguyen's 10900k @ 5.6ghz something something i think?
> View attachment 2548668
> 
> Fastest rocket lake ive seen, @sugi0lover
> 
> View attachment 2548669
> 
> 
> _edit_
> My old version 298.0_64 score
> 5950x = 314 cpu game fps
> View attachment 2548671


Build 349 and later saw a significant FPS increase. I would think his RAM is hella tuned as well. I would guess low to mid 30s Aida latency.
HT off helps a lot too.

He also has a 6900XT which outperforms the 3090 in SoTR 1080p lowest. Radeon GPUs also have less CPU overhead. This might be the first 10900K/6900XT combo I’ve seen.


techenth said:


> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUtechenth29110900KMSI Tomahawk5200DDR4Gskill F4-4266C17D-32GTZRB440016-17-17-36-3203080
> 
> View attachment 2548679


I’ll add this result to the table when I get home


----------



## sugi0lover

domdtxdissar said:


> Yeah i agree, for a 10900K that really is record breaking.
> Have never seen any gen10's this high, even those who run higher cpu clockspeeds and faster memory could not break 300 cpu game fps..
> 
> *Maybe its all down to game version and the skylake architecture is benefiting much more from this change then gen11/12 and Zen3.. (?)*
> 
> Some examples of gen10 scores in previous game-version:
> 
> View attachment 2548667
> 
> @Thanh Nguyen's 10900k @ 5.6ghz something something i think?
> View attachment 2548668
> 
> Fastest rocket lake ive seen, @sugi0lover
> 
> View attachment 2548669
> 
> 
> _edit_
> My old version 298.0_64 score
> 5950x = 314 cpu game fps
> View attachment 2548671


No, my 11900K bench was the below.
I am almost finishing on stable DDR5 7000 C30 with 12900K, so I will update when I get my Ram OC done.
[Edit : Below is not my submission, just for the correction]


----------



## Simzak

techenth said:


> Not entirely sure how this is possible. Really in awe and wonder. Currently stuck with 285 on 10900k 5.1/4.8 4400C16.


HT off, 5ghz cache, tweaked windows 1709, all subs, tertiaries, RTL/IOLs, skews, slopes everything tuned


----------



## geriatricpollywog

sugi0lover said:


> No, my 11900K bench was the below.
> I am almost finishing on stable DDR5 7000 C30 with 12900K, so I will update when I get my Ram OC done.
> [Edit : Below is not my submission, just for the correction]
> View attachment 2548705


I’d like to add it to the table if you don’t mind providing the hardware information. I’ll add my 11900K as well. I don’t see a problem with having multiple submissions with different platforms.


----------



## sugi0lover

geriatricpollywog said:


> I’d like to add it to the table if you don’t mind providing the hardware information. I’ll add my 11900K as well. I don’t see a problem with having multiple submissions with different platforms.


No problem~


RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUsugi0lover31111900KZ590 Apex5400DDR4Gskill F4-4000C14D-32GTRG 401013-14-14-28-224 (1:1)3090


----------



## Taraquin

Simzak said:


> HT off, 5ghz cache, tweaked windows 1709, all subs, tertiaries, RTL/IOLs, skews, slopes everything tuned


Hell of a job tuning skews, slopes etc, (I stay clear of them for now on my 12400), but it certainly paid off and you have a 10900K that is faster than most untuned/lightly tuned 12900Ks, atleast in SOTTR, but probably in many other games aswell, except for DDR5 lovers like Cyberpunk etc


----------



## Taraquin

geriatricpollywog said:


> Build 349 and later saw a significant FPS increase. I would think his RAM is hella tuned as well. I would guess low to mid 30s Aida latency.
> HT off helps a lot too.
> 
> He also has a 6900XT which outperforms the 3090 in SoTR 1080p lowest. Radeon GPUs also have less CPU overhead. This might be the first 10900K/6900XT combo I’ve seen.
> 
> I’ll add this result to the table when I get home


For CPU game avg the GPU don't matter  But spening time with rtl-iol, skews etc sure 9ays off and boost perf by over 10% vs just tuning prims, secs and thirds like most do


----------



## Luggage

RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPULuggage300/3085800XMSI X570 Unify5050 PBODDR4Gskill F4-3600C14-32GVKA380014-15-14-26-2402080Ti


SMT OFF, PBO 208-135-170

(edit: updated slightly better run watching hwinfo)









edit2: tried manual all core 8/8 @ 5000 and 5050 but did not score any better.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Luggage said:


> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPULuggage300/3085800XMSI X570 Unify5050 PBODDR4Gskill F4-3600C14-32GVKA380014-15-14-26-2402080Ti
> 
> 
> SMT OFF, PBO 208-135-170
> 
> (edit: updated slightly better run watching hwinfo)
> View attachment 2549382
> 
> 
> edit2: tried manual all core 8/8 @ 5000 and 5050 but did not score any better.


Just added to table.

We need some DDR5 results.


----------



## zebra_hun

Hi, here is my result. I've got old version, sorry, not the newest.
I9 10850k AC 5400MHz, Cache 5100MHz, Ram at 4400MHz CL17
RaBar and HT are disabled.


----------



## Theo164

The best my 350W pl limited (2x8pin) 3080ti can do



RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUTheo1643135900XAsus Crosshair VIII Hero5000DDR4Gskill F4-3600C16Q-32GTZR373316-16-16-32-2593080Ti











Spoiler


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Theo164 said:


> The best my 350W pl limited (2x8pin) 3080ti can do
> 
> 
> 
> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUTheo1643135900XAsus Crosshair VIII Hero5075DDR4Gskill F4-3600C16Q-32GTZR373316-16-16-32-2593080Ti


Thanks for your submission. I just added it to the table.



zebra_hun said:


> Hi, here is my result. I've got old version, sorry, not the newest.
> I9 10850k AC 5400MHz, Cache 5100MHz, Ram at 4400MHz CL17
> RaBar and HT are disabled.


Can you double check the info I added to the table?

Now I'm starting to get surprised that your result and @techenth 's result are so much lower than @Simzak 's result, especially since his CPU is only clocked to 5200 mhz. His memory primary timings are a bit tighter, but the difference must be in the secondaries and tertiaries. It could also be the lower driver overhead and better 1080p performance of the 6900XT.


----------



## domdtxdissar

geriatricpollywog said:


> Now I'm starting to get surprised that your result and @techenth 's result are so much lower than @Simzak 's result, especially since his CPU is only clocked to 5200 mhz. His memory primary timings are a bit tighter, but the difference must be in the secondaries and tertiaries. It could also be the lower driver overhead and better 1080p performance of the 6900XT.


Its Simzak's results thats way higher than anyone else's with skylake architecture like i said earlier

Either 6900Xt affect the results bigtime, or there is something else going on here..


----------



## Simzak

geriatricpollywog said:


> Thanks for your submission. I just added it to the table.
> 
> 
> Can you double check the info I added to the table?
> 
> Now I'm starting to get surprised that your result and @techenth 's result are so much lower than @Simzak 's result, especially since his CPU is only clocked to 5200 mhz. His memory primary timings are a bit tighter, but the difference must be in the secondaries and tertiaries. It could also be the lower driver overhead and better 1080p performance of the 6900XT.


The trick is tweaking windows, I only get 305fps on a stock latest windows 10 install.


----------



## Taraquin

Simzak said:


> The trick is tweaking windows, I only get 305fps on a stock latest windows 10 install.


Please share your tweaks


----------



## Simzak

Taraquin said:


> Please share your tweaks


Used this windows ISO and ran all the tweaks in the tweaks folder that comes with it lol. It's super stripped down though, I don't use it as a daily install just for benching.





FoxOS 1709 v1.0.5.iso







drive.google.com


----------



## kryptonfly

geriatricpollywog said:


> Thanks for your submission. I just added it to the table.
> 
> 
> Can you double check the info I added to the table?
> 
> Now I'm starting to get surprised that your result and @techenth 's result are so much lower than @Simzak 's result, especially since his CPU is only clocked to 5200 mhz. His memory primary timings are a bit tighter, but the difference must be in the secondaries and tertiaries. It could also be the lower driver overhead and better 1080p performance of the 6900XT.


It's his 6900XT which helps cause we know AMD drivers are better in 1080p for "CPU FPS" than nVidia (even in all resolutions), Hardware Unboxed made videos about this trouble :
=> Nvidia Has a Driver Overhead Problem, GeForce vs Radeon on Low-End CPUs - YouTube
=> Nvidia Driver Investigation [Part 2] Owners of Old CPUs Beware - YouTube
"_Nvidia does the bulk of its scheduling via software which leaves the cpu to do much of heavy lifting, AMD on the other hand uses a hardware scheduler built into the gpu_"

It's same with FH5 between AMD and nVidia => Forza Horizon 5 Extreme Benchmarks | RX 6900 XT | RTX 3090 | Ryzen 5000 Series - YouTube
His 5800X with a 6900XT has way higher CPU render FPS than his 5950X with a 3090.

As regard of SOTTR, it's impossible to do this score with a Geforce.


----------



## Taraquin

kryptonfly said:


> It's his 6900XT which helps cause we know AMD drivers are better in 1080p for "CPU FPS" than nVidia (even in all resolutions), Hardware Unboxed made videos about this trouble :
> => Nvidia Has a Driver Overhead Problem, GeForce vs Radeon on Low-End CPUs - YouTube
> => Nvidia Driver Investigation [Part 2] Owners of Old CPUs Beware - YouTube
> "_Nvidia does the bulk of its scheduling via software which leaves the cpu to do much of heavy lifting, AMD on the other hand uses a hardware scheduler built into the gpu_"
> 
> It's same with FH5 between AMD and nVidia => Forza Horizon 5 Extreme Benchmarks | RX 6900 XT | RTX 3090 | Ryzen 5000 Series - YouTube
> His 5800X with a 6900XT has way higher CPU render FPS than his 5950X with a 3090.
> 
> As regard of SOTTR, it's impossible to do this score with a Geforce.


Avg fps total yes, CPU game avg has nothing to do with what GPU you use as this is what the CPU produces independent if GPU. He has valid explanations: A very iptimuzed win 10 and good ram tweaking.


----------



## JSHamlet234

Simzak said:


> sed this windows ISO and ran all the tweaks in the tweaks folder that comes with it lol. It's super stripped down though, I don't use it as a daily install just for benching.


I've heard good things about build 1709 as a bench OS. I wonder how that ISO compares to the 1703 build that I've manually stripped.


----------



## Simzak

Taraquin said:


> Avg fps total yes, CPU game avg has nothing to do with what GPU you use as this is what the CPU produces independent if GPU. He has valid explanations: A very iptimuzed win 10 and good ram tweaking.


When I had an RTX 2080 my cpu game was the same with my normal windows install (305) never used custom windows on that card so I don't know if it would hit 340. That was at 720p though so not sure if that makes a big difference.


----------



## zebra_hun

geriatricpollywog said:


> Thanks for your submission. I just added it to the table.
> 
> 
> Can you double check the info I added to the table?
> 
> Now I'm starting to get surprised that your result and @techenth 's result are so much lower than @Simzak 's result, especially since his CPU is only clocked to 5200 mhz. His memory primary timings are a bit tighter, but the difference must be in the secondaries and tertiaries. It could also be the lower driver overhead and better 1080p performance of the 6900XT.


Hi, perfect, thank you.
I use my daily W10, all background process are running. It's just fun for me. Maybe i'll try later with tigh subs at 4600MHz Cl16 Ram.
*True, full version is better.* I share my results now. *I made it with demo*, lol. I am memory oc'er, but i don't like extreme settings. CPU clock don't matter, check this out.


----------



## kryptonfly

Taraquin said:


> Avg fps total yes, CPU game avg has nothing to do with what GPU you use as this is what the CPU produces independent if GPU. He has valid explanations: A very iptimuzed win 10 and good ram tweaking.


No, I'm talking about driver overhead issue with nVidia which put more load on CPU than AMD drivers, there's always better CPU FPS with AMD drivers in any games compared to nVidia (same system except GPU). SOTTR at 1080p lowest is too light and not enough to monitor GPU perf, it's only a CPU bench (except for 2080 and lower), especially with +300 fps, CPU & RAM matter to death, at this level it's sure AMD drivers help a lot.

@Simzak : thanks for OS but unfortunately 1709 is not compatible with nVidia Ampere drivers, it requires 2004 or later. 720p makes a difference.

@zebra_hun : from what I see, CPU clock matters, max FPS is not accurate and doesn't reflect true perf, sometimes just for a few ms that we don't see. AVG FPS is always what we need to rely on.
It's Denuvo free since v1.0 build 449 version, so yep last full versions are better.

Tbh, I wanna see a 12900K + 6900XT, spread the word if anyone knows a such system.


----------



## Simzak

kryptonfly said:


> No, I'm talking about driver overhead issue with nVidia which put more load on CPU than AMD drivers, there's always better CPU FPS with AMD drivers in any games compared to nVidia (same system except GPU). SOTTR at 1080p lowest is too light and not enough to monitor GPU perf, it's only a CPU bench (except for 2080 and lower), especially with +300 fps, CPU & RAM matter to death, at this level it's sure AMD drivers help a lot.
> 
> @Simzak : thanks for OS but unfortunately 1709 is not compatible with nVidia Ampere drivers, it requires 2004 or later. 720p makes a difference.
> 
> @zebra_hun : from what I see, CPU clock matters, max FPS is not accurate and doesn't reflect true perf, sometimes just for a few ms that we don't see. AVG FPS is always what we need to rely on.
> It's Denuvo free since v1.0 build 449 version, so yep last full versions are better.
> 
> Tbh, I wanna see a 12900K + 6900XT, spread the word if anyone knows a such system.


Ordered a 12900k earlier today, will post results when I get it.


----------



## kryptonfly

Simzak said:


> Ordered a 12900k earlier today, will post results when I get it.
> 
> View attachment 2549668



I'm looking forward to see results


----------



## Taraquin

kryptonfly said:


> No, I'm talking about driver overhead issue with nVidia which put more load on CPU than AMD drivers, there's always better CPU FPS with AMD drivers in any games compared to nVidia (same system except GPU). SOTTR at 1080p lowest is too light and not enough to monitor GPU perf, it's only a CPU bench (except for 2080 and lower), especially with +300 fps, CPU & RAM matter to death, at this level it's sure AMD drivers help a lot.
> 
> @Simzak : thanks for OS but unfortunately 1709 is not compatible with nVidia Ampere drivers, it requires 2004 or later. 720p makes a difference.
> 
> @zebra_hun : from what I see, CPU clock matters, max FPS is not accurate and doesn't reflect true perf, sometimes just for a few ms that we don't see. AVG FPS is always what we need to rely on.
> It's Denuvo free since v1.0 build 449 version, so yep last full versions are better.
> 
> Tbh, I wanna see a 12900K + 6900XT, spread the word if anyone knows a such system.


I had RX 580 earlier and got exact same fps on CPU game avg as with 3060ti.


----------



## napata

kryptonfly said:


> No, I'm talking about driver overhead issue with nVidia which put more load on CPU than AMD drivers, there's always better CPU FPS with AMD drivers in any games compared to nVidia (same system except GPU). SOTTR at 1080p lowest is too light and not enough to monitor GPU perf, it's only a CPU bench (except for 2080 and lower), especially with +300 fps, CPU & RAM matter to death, at this level it's sure AMD drivers help a lot.


This isn't true for all games. There's almost always more overhead on AMD for DX11 for example. HWU tested a couple of games and then generalized it for everything but that's not how it works.









CapFrameX - Alder Lake with fast DDR5 against Ryzen 5000 - Blog


An overclocking duel Alder Lake vs Ryzen 5000. Fast DDR5 makes Alder Lake unbeatable!




www.capframex.com





See? Some games show better performance on AMD while others on Nvidia. SOTTR seems pretty even but he doesn't use the built in benchmark so it might be that built in benchmark has more overhead on Nvidia while in his scene that might not be the case.


----------



## kryptonfly

Taraquin said:


> I had RX 580 earlier and got exact same fps on CPU game avg as with 3060ti.


Maybe it was not the same version, you should have "slightly" better CPU game avg fps now (+5 or +10 fps) with your 3060ti and latest versions (compared to previous v1.0 build 298 and AMD)... OR it was already too good with your RX 580 and your 3060ti catches up the loss thanks to latest game versions (Denuvo free).


napata said:


> This isn't true for all games. There's almost always more overhead on AMD for DX11 for example. HWU tested a couple of games and then generalized it for everything but that's not how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CapFrameX - Alder Lake with fast DDR5 against Ryzen 5000 - Blog
> 
> 
> An overclocking duel Alder Lake vs Ryzen 5000. Fast DDR5 makes Alder Lake unbeatable!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.capframex.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See? Some games show better performance on AMD while others on Nvidia. SOTTR seems pretty even but he doesn't use the built in benchmark so it might be that built in benchmark has more overhead on Nvidia while in his scene that might not be the case.


It's really interesting but he compares AVG GPU fps, I'm talking about CPU game AVG, just very few games show CPU fps, SOTTR, HZD... ACreed in ms, Guardians of the Galaxy in ms too... But yes, some games are optimized for AMD or Nvidia.


----------



## Taraquin

kryptonfly said:


> Maybe it was not the same version, you should have "slightly" better CPU game avg fps now (+5 or +10 fps) with your 3060ti and latest versions (compared to previous v1.0 build 298 and AMD)... OR it was already too good with your RX 580 and your 3060ti catches up the loss thanks to latest game versions (Denuvo free).
> It's really interesting but he compares AVG GPU fps, I'm talking about CPU game AVG, just very few games show CPU fps, SOTTR, HZD... ACreed in ms, Guardians of the Galaxy in ms too... But yes, some games are optimized for AMD or Nvidia.


No, I checked both pre denovio removal, got within margin of error (+/-5 fps). Have sold the 580 so can't check now, but would be suprised if difference have grown.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Updated run with latest game version = *352* CPU average fps 








Missed my old personal best by 1 fps 
(think this windows install is slower)


----------



## Simzak

napata said:


> This isn't true for all games. There's almost always more overhead on AMD for DX11 for example. HWU tested a couple of games and then generalized it for everything but that's not how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CapFrameX - Alder Lake with fast DDR5 against Ryzen 5000 - Blog
> 
> 
> An overclocking duel Alder Lake vs Ryzen 5000. Fast DDR5 makes Alder Lake unbeatable!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.capframex.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See? Some games show better performance on AMD while others on Nvidia. SOTTR seems pretty even but he doesn't use the built in benchmark so it might be that built in benchmark has more overhead on Nvidia while in his scene that might not be the case.


The AMD overhead on DX11 is why I ordered a 12900k, draw calls are handled by a SINGLE CORE and one core on my 10900k sits at 100% usage the whole time while playing Apex Legends. I lost about 50fps going from an RTX 2080 to 6900XT on Apex. Hopefully a CPU with better IPC helps.


----------



## kryptonfly

domdtxdissar said:


> Updated run with latest game version = *352* CPU average fps
> View attachment 2549710
> 
> Missed my old personal best by 1 fps
> (think this windows install is slower)


Do you OC your 3090 ? My gpu fps are lower at 2190mhz, there's something wrong with my gpu fps, maybe because I tweaked a little Nvidia panel 🤔 


Simzak said:


> The AMD overhead on DX11 is why I ordered a 12900k, draw calls are handled by a SINGLE CORE and one core on my 10900k sits at 100% usage the whole time while playing Apex Legends. I lost about 50fps going from an RTX 2080 to 6900XT on Apex. Hopefully a CPU with better IPC helps.


It will help, I gained a lot in Shadow of war an old DX11 game now, at a specific scene I got 87 fps mini with my 6950X at 4.65 Ghz and with the 12900k at 5.4 Ghz I got 135 fps +55% ! Surely I could do better because it was on a Tomahawk D4 with my SR DDR4 at 4000C14, I improved perf with a Strix D4 and DR DDR4 at 4100C14 around +3.5% in SOTTR. Same with FC5, I got 209 fps avg at 1080p lowest and 329 fps avg with a 12900k, +57% +120 fps, holy s*** !


Same with FFXIV Endwalker bench, an old DX11 engine, I got 80 fps mini with my 6950X and 120 fps mini with a 12900k at 1080p max ! I'm talking about MINI because I don't have AVG.
OK, enough rambling, I don't want to create HS in this thread, my apologies.


----------



## domdtxdissar

kryptonfly said:


> Do you OC your 3090 ? My gpu fps are lower at 2190mhz, there's something wrong with my gpu fps, maybe because I tweaked a little Nvidia panel 🤔


That run above was with 1000w bios at above 2200mhz core with custom watercooling in coldish air..
My previous run was with more normal "daily 550w bios" (still oced) on low normal ambient temps with custom water



domdtxdissar said:


> My old benchrun:
> 
> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUDomdtxdissar3505950XUnify X MAX~5000DDR4G.Skill F4-4000C14-16GTZR380013-14-12-22-34-2243090
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recorded video of the run and settings:


Here are some other gamebenches with my old cpu:


http://imgur.com/a/RwxpB0T


----------



## geriatricpollywog

domdtxdissar said:


> Updated run with latest game version = *352* CPU average fps
> View attachment 2549710
> 
> Missed my old personal best by 1 fps
> (think this windows install is slower)


I'm not seeing a huge difference in fps between beta 449, beta 453, or official 458. That said, my result with 453 was 1 fps higher than 458.



kryptonfly said:


> OK, enough rambling, I don't want to create HS in this thread, my apologies.


Rambling is fine as long as you have a result in the table.


----------



## kryptonfly

domdtxdissar said:


> That run above was with 1000w bios at above 2200mhz core with custom watercooling in coldish air..
> My previous run was with more normal "daily 550w bios" (still oced) on normal ambient temps with custom water
> 
> 
> Here are some other gamebenches with my old cpu:
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/RwxpB0T


Great  why you said "old cpu" ? Did you upgrade ?
HZD is more interesting for memory bench, here's my result with my 6950X, 1080p lowest, scale 100% :

As we can see, it's not thanks to IPC that I catch up a 5950X. I forgot to test at 1080p lowest with my previous 12900K, I got back my money yesterday, waiting for a 12900KS.


geriatricpollywog said:


> I'm not seeing a huge difference in fps between beta 449, beta 453, or official 458. That said, my result with 453 was 1 fps higher than 458.
> 
> 
> Rambling is fine as long as you have a result in the table.


Yes Sir, I don't have my 12900K anymore but you can register my 6950X for now :


RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUkryptonfly2566950XAsus X99 Strix4646DDR4G.Skill F4-3000C14Q-32GTZR340013-12-13-26-2203090

@domdtxdissar : Yep, I OC'ed further my 3090 at 2200 mhz effective clock (2250 mhz/1.081v) and my gpu fps improved from 488 (2190 mhz/1.018v) to 513 avg gpu fps, +5.12%. (2250/2190 = +2.74% gpu freq)


----------



## domdtxdissar

kryptonfly said:


> Great  why you said "old cpu" ? Did you upgrade ?


My new 5950x is much better binned, can run higher clockspeeds 


http://imgur.com/a/6ovsyya

(but i think my current windows install is alittle bloated and slower than it should be.. needed over +100mhz on both CCD's to match my old SotTR numbers)


kryptonfly said:


> @domdtxdissar : Yep, I OC'ed further my 3090 at 2200 mhz effective clock (2250 mhz/1.081v) and my gpu fps improved from 488 (2190 mhz/1.018v) to 513 avg gpu fps, +5.12%. (2250/2190 = +2.74% gpu freq)


Nicely up to speed 
Did any other tweaks / running special OS ?


----------



## kryptonfly

domdtxdissar said:


> My new 5950x is much better binned, can run higher clockspeeds
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/6ovsyya
> 
> (but i think my current windows install is alittle bloated and slower than it should be.. needed over +100mhz on both CCD's to match my old SotTR numbers)
> 
> Nicely up to speed
> Did any other tweaks / running special OS ?


I just disabled G-Sync, default Nvidia panel, my windows is old from 1809 => 2004 => W11 22000.376. I didn't update it, not a hurry. I always download my W11 from => windows 11 - Browse known builds - UUP dump

Make sure :

"*Hardware-accelerated GPU Scheduling*" is *disabled* in Windows settings.
*Large Page mode* is *enabled* => Enabling large page support on Windows | www.chaoticafractals.com
*Ultimate Performance Power Plan* is *enabled* => Windows 11 Add Ultimate Performance Power Plan - ComputerSluggish
*HPET* is *disabled* = in CMD paste : bcdedit /set useplatformclock no ... and in Device Manager disable "High precision event timer"
*Disable Cortana/Search* by renaming its folder by opening its file location through Task Manager, end it and rename it just after OR disable it in Services => "Windows Search"

These tweaks above should be always considered on all gaming PC ! You can install drivers with NVCleanstall and choose "MSI" (Message Signalled Interrupts) as "High" default, disable telemetry too. Of course we can always do better, tweak Services, disable some Windows features with => (English) O&O ShutUp10++: Free antispy tool for Windows 10 and 11 (oo-software.com) (no offense of course lol).

If anyone knows good tweaks, feel free to share


----------



## Simzak

Got my 12900kf earlier today and I'm really happy with it. Massive upgrade from a 10900k. Gonna go for 400fps next.


RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUSimzak39112900kfAsus TUF5300DDR4Gskill F4-3600C16D-32GTRS400015-16-16-28-3286900XT


----------



## kryptonfly

Simzak said:


> Got my 12900kf earlier today and I'm really happy with it. Massive upgrade from a 10900k. Gonna go for 400fps next.
> 
> 
> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUSimzak39112900kfAsus TUF5300DDR4Gskill F4-3600C16D-32GTRS400015-16-16-28-3286900XT
> 
> 
> View attachment 2549896


Yep, thanks to 6900XT and AMD drivers. If you want you can test FFXIV Endwalker bench at 1080p max fullscreen => Final Fantasy XIV: Endwalker Benchmark Download

Also, I'm really curious if you have ACreed Odyssey, at 1080p ultra.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Simzak said:


> Got my 12900kf earlier today and I'm really happy with it. Massive upgrade from a 10900k. Gonna go for 400fps next.
> 
> 
> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUSimzak39112900kfAsus TUF5300DDR4Gskill F4-3600C16D-32GTRS400015-16-16-28-3286900XT
> 
> 
> View attachment 2549896


Nice result! I’ll update the table when I get home. 

@sugi0lover I’m not sure DDR5 can compete with DDR4. Prove me wrong!


----------



## sugi0lover

geriatricpollywog said:


> Nice result! I’ll update the table when I get home.
> 
> @sugi0lover I’m not sure DDR5 can compete with DDR4. Prove me wrong!


Do I have to prove anything? This bench is just one of so many benches.
Some games like DDR4, and some DDR5. There is no one answer.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

sugi0lover said:


> Do I have to prove anything? This bench is just one of so many benches.
> Some games like DDR4, and some DDR5. There is no one answer.


My apologies, just trying to stoke the fire and incite some DDR5 competition. I thought you were going to post a result. I suppose not.


----------



## sugi0lover

geriatricpollywog said:


> My apologies, just trying to stoke the fire and incite some DDR5 competition. I thought you were going to post a result. I suppose if you can’t reach #1, better not to post?


Nope. I am still working on 7200 CL30, so I haven't run any game bench. I don't care being #1 or not since I don't compete with anyone here. 
After seeing the other guy's 391fps, I don't think this bench can tell well the performance of CPU + Ram OC. 
I see some guys with better DDR4 Ram oc + Nvida having a lot lower fps result.
The high fps is due to his AMD graphic card not his DDR4 OC.
Also I saw some people lowering resolution modifier for the bench and changing it after the bench. I don't like this kind of bench which can be faked easily.
Chill out man~ You don't need to prove anything. Just enjoy what you have. Peace out~


----------



## Antsu

sugi0lover said:


> Also I saw some people lowering resolution modifier for the bench and changing it after the bench.


You can spot this by looking at their GPU render numbers 

My result on unlucky SP81 (87 big core) 12900K @ 5.4 core / 5.1 cache, single rank power


----------



## kryptonfly

I agree with @sugi0lover, this bench showed all to us that Nvidia can't compete with AMD drivers for DX12 games. That's why I'm really curious to see what @Simzak can do with his 6900XT in FFXIV Endwalker bench (1080p max full-screen we can't cheat) and in ACreed Odyssey 1080p ultra preset DX11 game. We could also test HZD because my old 6950X catches up the @domdtxdissar's 5950X above and I have just +8% gain with a 12900k but we can cheat with scaling and this game favors AMD (DX12 and from AMD PS4).

Clearly, @Antsu result is very interesting, I have same "requests", at least for FFXIV Endwalker bench if you don't have ACO and if you don't mind of course. I'm really curious because I didn't test my SR DDR4 on the Strix D4 and I sent back my 12900K so I can't check for now, I'm waiting a 12900KS.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Antsu said:


> You can spot this by looking at their GPU render numbers
> 
> My result on unlucky SP81 (87 big core) 12900K @ 5.4 core / 5.1 cache, single rank power
> View attachment 2549988
> 
> 
> View attachment 2549989


I didn’t know you could do that. My result was per my screenshot. What happens to the GPU render numbers?


----------



## Simzak

kryptonfly said:


> I agree with @sugi0lover, this bench showed all to us that Nvidia can't compete with AMD drivers for DX12 games. That's why I'm really curious to see what @Simzak can do with his 6900XT in FFXIV Endwalker bench (1080p max full-screen we can't cheat) and in ACreed Odyssey 1080p ultra preset DX11 game. We could also test HZD because my old 6950X catches up the @domdtxdissar's 5950X above and I have just +8% gain with a 12900k but we can cheat with scaling and this game favors AMD (DX12 and from AMD PS4).
> 
> Clearly, @Antsu result is very interesting, I have same "requests", at least for FFXIV Endwalker bench if you don't have ACO and if you don't mind of course. I'm really curious because I didn't test my SR DDR4 on the Strix D4 and I sent back my 12900K so I can't check for now, I'm waiting a 12900KS.


Will run the FFXIV Endwalker bench tonight, I don't have odyssey though.


----------



## Antsu

geriatricpollywog said:


> What happens to the GPU render numbers?


Absurdly high numbers because of low GPU load.



kryptonfly said:


> FFXIV Endwalker bench


Ran it quickly and got ~42200. Might test Odyssey later if I have time.


----------



## domdtxdissar

kryptonfly said:


> I agree with @sugi0lover, this bench showed all to us that Nvidia can't compete with AMD drivers for DX12 games.


Dont think Simzak's 6900XT is the reason for his very high fps numbers (for the hardware and clocks he is running). Its more likely the special tweaked windows version thats the reason for this..

Like he said himself, with regular 24/7 windows he was "only" getting *305 fps* with his skylake gen10 system --> with "special windows" he is getting *341 fps* on same hardware

With Alder lake and "special windows" he is getting *392 fps*.. If i were to guesstimate, i would say he would score around *352 fps* with the same Alder lake setup on a normal windows install.



Simzak said:


> Used this windows ISO and ran all the tweaks in the tweaks folder that comes with it lol. It's super stripped down though, I don't use it as a daily install just for benching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FoxOS 1709 v1.0.5.iso
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com


Seems like that "special windows" gives + ~40fps compared to a normal daily windows install in the SotTR bench
I think if *sugi0lover *ran the same OS, he would get ~370 + 40 = around 410fps..


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Antsu said:


> Absurdly high numbers because of low GPU load.
> 
> 
> Ran it quickly and got ~42200. Might test Odyssey later if I have time.


Well my GPU numbers are high and I'm not cheating so I can't rely on that.

I don't see a difference in my score at 720p or when I re-test with resolution modifier turned down.

Do you want me to put your result in the table? If so, I need motherboard, core speed, ram kit etc.


----------



## kryptonfly

Antsu said:


> Absurdly high numbers because of low GPU load.
> 
> 
> Ran it quickly and got ~42200. Might test Odyssey later if I have time.


Thanks  my best was 41300 at 5.5 Ghz with DR 4100-14-14-14-28-2T ~2.18% less than your SR DDR4, around same with SOTTR 359 fps at 5.4/5. I was fool to not test with my 2x8 SR... (4x8 didn't boot at XMP).


domdtxdissar said:


> Dont think Simzak's 6900XT is the reason for his very high fps numbers (for the hardware and clocks he is running). Its more likely the special tweaked windows version thats the reason for this..
> 
> Like he said himself, with regular 24/7 windows he was "only" getting *305 fps* with his skylake gen10 system --> with "special windows" he is getting *341 fps* on same hardware
> 
> With Alder lake and "special windows" he is getting *392 fps*.. If i were to guesstimate, i would say he would score around *352 fps* with the same Alder lake setup on a normal windows install.
> 
> 
> Seems like that "special windows" gives + ~40fps compared to a normal daily windows install in the SotTR bench
> I think if *sugi0lover *ran the same OS, he would get ~370 + 40 = around 410fps..


I don't think so, I know tuned 10900K + 3090, ram ~4100C16 they don't even hit 300 fps... so 305 fps at stock is really high (AMD drivers). His "special windows" 1709 is not compatible with RTX 3000 (2004 and later), so we can't test. Drivers won't install, maybe that changed but before I could not install RTX 3000 drivers. And DX12 is not up to date, it easier for TimeSpy and all DX12 game, it lacks of rays. I'm sure with a 3090 his score would be lower between 360 and 370 fps. We will see with Endwalker bench if his windows can interfere because I'm as much curious as you.

He said this : 


Simzak said:


> The AMD overhead on DX11 is why I ordered a 12900k, draw calls are handled by a SINGLE CORE and one core on my 10900k sits at 100% usage the whole time while playing Apex Legends. I lost about 50fps going from an RTX 2080 to 6900XT on Apex. Hopefully a CPU with better IPC helps.


 So the reverse is possible from Nvidia => AMD for optimized AMD DX12 games.

@geriatricpollywog : don't forget to put my 6950X in the table, top of page 4


----------



## geriatricpollywog

kryptonfly said:


> Thanks  my best was 41300 at 5.5 Ghz with DR 4100-14-14-14-28-2T ~2.18% less than your SR DDR4, around same with SOTTR 359 fps at 5.4/5. I was fool to not test with my 2x8 SR... (4x8 didn't boot at XMP).
> I don't think so, I know tuned 10900K + 3090, ram ~4100C16 they don't even hit 300 fps... so 305 fps at stock is really high (AMD drivers). His "special windows" 1709 is not compatible with RTX 3000 (2004 and later), so we can't test. Drivers won't install, maybe that changed but before I could not install RTX 3000 drivers. And DX12 is not up to date, it easier for TimeSpy and all DX12 game, it lacks of rays. I'm sure with a 3090 his score would be lower between 360 and 370 fps. We will see with Endwalker bench if his windows can interfere because I'm as much curious as you.
> 
> He said this :
> So the reverse is possible from Nvidia => AMD for optimized AMD DX12 games.
> 
> @geriatricpollywog : don't forget to put my 6950X in the table, top of page 4


I did put it in the table. Did I miss it?


----------



## domdtxdissar

kryptonfly said:


> I don't think so, I know tuned 10900K + 3090, ram ~4100C16 they don't even hit 300 fps...


Have you seen any high clocked gen10 results from the newest game versions without the denuvo drm crap ? *If so please link them*..

I know the fastest 10900k systems could hit around *270-285 cpu fps in game version 298.0_64* (with denuvo enabled)

So i'm not surprised the same systems can hit ~300-310 fps in game version beta 449, beta 453, or official 458 without denvou.. Its only a increase of around ~ +10% fps, which also matches pretty good with the increase i'm seeing on my Zen3 system.. I actually went from 314fps to 353 fps = ~40 fps difference between drm enabled and disabled)







Please read linked forum posts here
Which also means AMD GFX drivers have nothing to do with this, its all down to Simzak's benchmark only windows install why he is getting these abnormally high numbers


----------



## Simzak

domdtxdissar said:


> Have you seen any high clocked gen10 results from the newest game versions without the denuvo drm crap ? *If so please link them*..
> 
> I know the fastest 10900k systems could hit around *270-285 cpu fps in game version 298.0_64* (with denuvo enabled)
> 
> So i'm not surprised the same systems can hit ~300-310 fps in game version beta 449, beta 453, or official 458 without denvou.. Its only a increase of around ~ +10% fps, which also matches pretty good with the increase i'm seeing on my Zen3 system.. I actually went from 314fps to 353 fps = ~40 fps difference between drm enabled and disabled)
> View attachment 2549999
> 
> Please read linked forum posts here
> Which also means AMD GFX drivers have nothing to do with this, its all down to Simzak's benchmark only windows install why he is getting these abnormally high numbers


Yeah pretty sure it's the tweaked 1709 iso, nearly get 50fps lower on a debloated regular windows 11 install with the exact same driver and bios settings. Would love to see what someone with a better setup that mine could do on that OS, not sure if you can get the nvidia drivers working on it though. For AMD I had to manually select the driver file for it to install in device manager.


----------



## kryptonfly

geriatricpollywog said:


> I did put it in the table. Did I miss it?


Perfect , I replied before you surely.


domdtxdissar said:


> Have you seen any high clocked gen10 results from the newest game versions without the denuvo drm crap ? *If so please link them*..
> 
> I know the fastest 10900k systems could hit around *270-285 cpu fps in game version 298.0_64* (with denuvo enabled)
> 
> So i'm not surprised the same systems can hit ~300-310 fps in game version beta 449, beta 453, or official 458 without denvou.. Its only a increase of around ~ +10% fps, which also matches pretty good with the increase i'm seeing on my Zen3 system.. I actually went from 314fps to 353 fps = ~40 fps difference between drm enabled and disabled)
> View attachment 2549999
> 
> Please read linked forum posts here
> Which also means AMD GFX drivers have nothing to do with this, its all down to Simzak's benchmark only windows install why he is getting these abnormally high numbers


I already knew techpowerup forum and the thread you're pointing but there's no one with a gen10 except some months ago with v1.0.298 (Denuvo). I don't want to presume anything but are you the profil : Det0x from techpowerup ? I agree ~10% increase without Denuvo is highly possible, I never said the reverse, I gained +14% with my 6950X. I sent a message to my 10850K/3090 acquaintance, hope he will respond lol.

@Simzak : Well... you lost a lot in GPU fps, I think it's the old DX12 version in windows 1709 which helps, that's why it would be nice to test Endwalker bench (DX11) with your 1709 W10. If I'm right, you can be competitive in normal games but you could skip some RTX functionalities (ex in 3dmark).

@geriatricpollywog : A suggestion : maybe a standard windows (W10 2004 and later) would be better to bench here, or at least just to add the Windows version in the table (screens already show versions but not accurate for Windows 11).


----------



## Simzak

Can't get the endwalker bench to run on 1709. @kryptonfly any idea how to fix this? Also lost a lot of GPU FPS because my radeon settings reset because my PC crashed while overclocking E cores. Doesn't seem to have any effect on the FPS though.


----------



## kryptonfly

@Simzak : Oh... sorry it's the first time I see Endwalker make problems. Seems a memory trouble. Maybe another inconvenient to use an old windows... Or you can try this => Final Fantasy XIV Benchmark Download | TechPowerUp just 172 mb. It's older than W10 1709 lol, works great too (DX9).


----------



## matique

Hey, thought i'd pop by and rep some DDR5. Those DDR4 scores are pretty mad! This was done on daily OS, just did a bit of debloating for cortana edge etc. 5.5p, disabled ecore and HT. Ring at 5.0


Average FPS

RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUMatique36812900kZ690i Unify5500DDR5Kingston 6000c40 (Hynix)700030-41-41-283090 FE

Average CPU Game FPS

RankUserCPU Game FPSMatique374


----------



## Arni90

Here's a DDR5 result, though I think I need better DIMMs to push beyond.



RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUArni9036112900KMSI Z690 Unify-X5520DDR5Corsair CMT32GX5M2X6200C36682730-39-41-30-2T3090


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Thanks for sharing! I’ll update the table later and add my own 7000cl30 result after work.


----------



## bscool

geriatricpollywog said:


> Thanks for sharing! I’ll update the table later and add my own 7000cl30 result after work.


If only you could run "real 1T". Funnny how no one with Apex is posting these "huge" gains with 1t it supposedly gives.

I run an Apex but I look at things objectively and go by actual data not hearsay. No data to back up these "real 1t" claims.

The only thing I have seen it faster tm5 times but for actual improvements over higher clocks at 2t I havent seen it.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

bscool said:


> If only you could run "real 1T". Funnny how no one with Apex is posting these "huge" gains with 1t it supposedly gives.
> 
> I run an Apex but I look at things objectively and go by actual data not hearsay. No data to back up these "real 1t" claims.
> 
> The only thing I have seen it faster tm5 times but for actual improvements over higher clocks at 2t I havent seen it.


Be careful about spreading negative propaganda about ROG boards, or your ROG social credit score will go down and you’ll no longer receive free products.

For now, you will receive *Re-Education:*

ROG motherboard produces the best overclocking results: This is to be expected.

Competing brand produces better results: They copied Asus bios. Wait for new bios.

Competing brand still produces better results after bios update: Asus can run Real 1T.


----------



## tcclaviger

Hi, PCIE 8x 3.0 !! Silly half broken hardware lol. There's so much more to be had, this is reBAR ON, SMT OFF, does better than reBAR OFF SMT OFF with gimped PCIE bandwidth. Will follow up next week with PCIE 4.0.









RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUtcclaviger3665800X3DCrosshair 6 Extreme~4659DDR4Patriot Viper 4400cl19 4x8400616-16-16-32-48-3003080ti


----------



## tcclaviger

Cracked 400 Game FPS, but PCIE limitations kill the run. Expecting to crack 400 average next week.


----------



## matique

tcclaviger said:


> Hi, PCIE 8x 3.0 !! Silly half broken hardware lol. There's so much more to be had, this is reBAR ON, SMT OFF, does better than reBAR OFF SMT OFF with gimped PCIE bandwidth. Will follow up next week with PCIE 4.0.
> View attachment 2557269
> 
> 
> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUtcclaviger3665800X3DCrosshair 6 Extreme~4659DDR4Patriot Viper 4400cl19 4x8400616-16-16-32-48-3003080ti


running 2000 IF stable? jeez that's a fast ass chip!


----------



## tcclaviger

Small update:









RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUtcclaviger3715800X3DCrosshair 6 Extreme~4659DDR4Patriot Viper 4400cl19 4x8403015-15-12-14-30-44-3003080ti


Will get some better results in the coming days. Figured out all FCLK straps do not perform the same even if the memory is equally performant and highest function is not the fasts strap. Reminds of the Ivy Bridge E days...


----------



## matique

RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUMatique37512900KZ690i Unify 5450DDR5Kingston 6000c40 16x2707030-41-41-283090 FE

Small update to my daily. Looking forward to the other 5800x3d with tuned ram turn up!


----------



## tcclaviger

RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUtcclaviger3815800X3DCrosshair 8 Extreme4677DDR4Patriot Viper 4400C19 4x8202115-15-12-14-30-44-2803080ti










Rebuilt the gaming PC last night upon C8E arrival, I am unfortunately heavily bottlenecked by GPU, the 5800X3D is going to need an OCd 6900XTXH to crack 400 average I suspect. This is a shunt modded 3080ti with an aggressive boost curve peaking at [email protected] (which it does hit often) with die kept under 22c and +1330mem. For reference, PR score is 15631.


----------



## kryptonfly

@tcclaviger : try to lessen "resolution modifier" to ease the load but I think you should have the same average. I tried once and it changed nothing. You can't do more than cpu game average = gpu bound at 0%. The best case scenario should be 399 avg with gpu bound 0% according to your last result but it's impossible with Nvidia to have gpu bound 0% despite these settings.

With my 3090 locked with SMI at 2205/+1128 I reach ~510 fps in gpu average, 469 fps with 2305 mhz boost seems low. Maybe you can improve gpu score.


----------



## tcclaviger

Thanks I'll play some with it, just seems bar on and bar off should be more than 1 fps difference, this is bar off, bar on is much better GPU performance but CPU drops from ~400 to ~375 average. CPU just needs bigger OC for bar on helping the GPU out while not gimping CPU avg sadly my 3080ti won't tolerate any greater bclk than 102.8 but the CPU is completely stable at 105.6 and benchmark stable at 107.4

The chip can do 400+ CPU average, Ive seen it happen a few times tinkering with settings. Honestly slightly wishing I'd bought a 6900xtxh instead. Maybe next gen I'll go back to team red GPU.


----------



## bloot

Well, MSI bios is a mess, I have no vcore setting to lower it, I have no SMT setting to disable it, my god what was MSI thinking when making this bios. Anyway, that's what I get with stock barebones 5800X3D, LLC 8 so it vdroops that insane stock voltage and PBO2 Tuner app with -30 CO to lower a bit the vcore. At least they did not remove the bclk setting, will try that route later.










RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUbloot3695800X3DB550 Tomahawk~4450DDR4Crucial Ballistix 3600 C16 2x16380016-17-17-17-37-46-5466800XT


----------



## tcclaviger

Final result for now. Fixed bottlenecking thanks to some suggestions here, at this point more CPU speed is needed, so a GPU that tolerates higher BCLK is the only way forward here.


RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUtcclaviger3855800X3DCrosshair 8 Extreme~4575DDR4Patriot Viper 4400C19 4x8411215-15-12-14-30-44-2803080ti


----------



## domdtxdissar

Testruns, not finalized scores:

1900:3800 CL13








2100:4466 CL15








Things left to try: disable SMT, enable/disable rebar, new bench-only windows install and giving it a shoot with my old 2x8gb memory sticks.
Main bottleneck is CPU clocks, motherboard without external clockgen = stuck on 100mhz baseclock.


----------



## kryptonfly

domdtxdissar said:


> Testruns, not finalized scores:
> 
> 1900:3800 CL13
> View attachment 2558388
> 
> 
> 2100:4466 CL15
> View attachment 2558389
> 
> 
> Things left to try: disable SMT, enable/disable rebar, new bench-only windows install and giving it a shoot with my old 2x8gb memory sticks.
> Main bottleneck is CPU clocks, motherboard without external clockgen = stuck on 100mhz baseclock.


It's not fair, you changed settings but we don't know what : "apply changes" (it's not the first time in another site)
GPU score is way too high for these settings. At least keep your true settings to match with the truth. No offense of course, just the truth.


----------



## domdtxdissar

kryptonfly said:


> It's not fair, you changed settings but we don't know what : "apply changes" (it's not the first time in another site)
> GPU score is way too high for these settings. At least keep your true settings to match with the truth. No offense of course, just the truth.


Yes alt+enter to exit fullscreen together with resolution modifier, no dx11 trickery like i *exposed* earlier
Can show fullscreen screenshot without "apply changes" when i get home from work, if you want.


> I saw a guy other was was posting about ~375fps cpu game average numbers results with his 5950x in the "official-intel-ddr5-oc" and was wondering how that was possible myself.. Yesterday i saw a guy posted ~420fps average with top tuned Alder lake, but he had forgot to hide dx option..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then i understood.. just run the benchmark as normal in dx11 mode, and switch the tab over to dx12 when before you take screenshot..
> hence the: *beware, If low min render and "high" gpu bound = run is actually dx11*


If your 3090 is only hitting ~510 fps in gpu average together with resolution modifier, i would say its underperforming
The truth is no offense of course 

_edit_
Maybe my post was alittle harsh.. to give a measure stick for what is required to hit ~590-600 gpu fps average in SotTR. I'm hitting above 16k in 3dmark port royal with my 3090 when max tuned. *tcclaviger *are hitting 590 gpu fps average with his 3080TI in the post above.


----------



## tcclaviger

While I see what you mean about the apply changes being present, the scores are entirely within the realm of believable for an X3D on OCd 3090. I see zero reason for Dom to be cheating here.

Dom your best result will be SMT off and BAR off most likely. Should land right around 385-389 like that. SMT on I'm at 367-374 range, off is the 381-388 range (filthy daily win10 with all default services active lmao). I suspect you'll be past 400 on a streamlined OS when MSI makes bclk available for you (if possible on that board).

PS: Look ONE post above for 3080ti @ 590 average, and I've seen >600 avg at times.


----------



## kryptonfly

@tcclaviger did 590-600 fps with resolution modifier at the minimum (my advice) and you too @domdtxdissar. I was just expecting you would not change settings and not try to fool people or whatever the name, it's bad  that's all. Yes the score is matching to a 5800X3D with resolution modifier at the minimum but it's always better to keep unchanged settings, isn't it ? Nobody else here than you change settings, I don't know why... Just keep your settings, that's all what I mean.

Am I the only one here to find this practice a little disrespectful ?  (to change settings and print screen)


----------



## bloot

Just by switching to W10 from W11 I got 11 fps more lol

ReBar/SAM ON, SMT ON (have no way to turn it off in this MSI garbage bios)











RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUbloot3805800X3DB550 Tomahawk~4450DDR4Crucial Ballistix 3600 C16 2x16380016-17-17-17-37-46-5466800XT


----------



## domdtxdissar

RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUdomdtxdissar3795800X3DUnify x max~4450DDR4Gskill 4000 C14 2x16380013-8-14-12-22-34-2163090









SMT enabled (bios dont support to turn it off)
No external clockgen -> baseclock 100mhz = no cpu overclocking


----------



## Sartaro

RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUSartaro3265800X3DAsrock B550 Steel Legend~4450DDR4Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600 C18 4x8373318-22-22-42-1T1080 Ti

Hi. First time posting here. I've got a 5800X3D so I ran the benchmark to see if my sample is a good one compared to the others in the thread. As I'm bottlenecked by GPU, I lowered the resolution scaling to a minimum, so I could compared just the CPU. I ran without altering the res scaling setting as well just for the sake of it. Here are the results.










Below is the result without messing with the res scaling:










And for last one is the result with my previous CPU, [email protected] just out of curiosity:


----------



## cssorkinman

bloot said:


> ReBar/SAM ON, SMT ON (have no way to turn it off in this MSI garbage bios)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUbloot3805800X3DB550 Tomahawk~4450DDR4Crucial Ballistix 3600 C16 2x16380016-17-17-17-37-46-5466800XT





domdtxdissar said:


> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUdomdtxdissar3795800X3DUnify x max~4450DDR4Gskill 4000 C14 2x16380013-8-14-12-22-34-2163090
> 
> View attachment 2558614
> 
> SMT enabled (bios dont support to turn it off)


You both should be able to turn off SMT under the Advanced OC settings in BIOS.


----------



## bloot

cssorkinman said:


> You both should be able to turn off SMT under the Advanced OC settings in BIOS.


We could do that if MSI did not remove it intentionally from the bios with support for the 5800X3D, who knows why. They removed a lot of settings for this cpu.


----------



## cssorkinman

bloot said:


> We could do that if MSI did not remove it intentionally from the bios with support for the 5800X3D, who knows why. They removed a lot of settings for this cpu.


Ah - I didn't realize the update took that away- I've used the Unify in builds with other 5xxx's and it had that option as have all the AM4 boards I've used ( though not always easy to find in bios). Hopefully it's in the process of being restored in the next bios update. I haven't used a 550 tomahawk yet, but I am certainly considering it in combo with a $150 5500 as a rig for a nephew . The 550 unify might be my favorite board - I built my daughter a machine as a college graduation present using it, a FTW 3070, 3600 gskill,5600x, meshify case, seasonic psu and a sabrent nvme. It's boost behavior and cpu/memory stability are outstanding.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Manage to break magical 400fps gpu game limit 

5800x3d @ stock 4450mhz
Average CPU Game = 406 fps 








If only we could find a way to overclock these cpu, for us without external clockgen for baseclock..
Imagine what this cpu could do @ 4.8 to 5ghz with unlocked multiplier


----------



## bloot

I also tried SMT off thanks to some "magic tool" (not thanks to MSI though) and 103.6875 bclk, so close to 400 fps but not yet 











RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUbloot3955800X3DB550 Tomahawk~4614DDR4Crucial Ballistix 3600 C16 2x16380016-17-17-17-37-46-5466800XT


----------



## jomama22

New motherboard (kingpin) and memory OC: (sorry pic is from my phone)

Edit: So is resolution modifier and/or resolution itself allowed? Not really clear what exactly the bounds are here. This is using 720p but no res modifier (pic was taken with 1080 for clarity)











RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUJomama2238612900KSZ690 Dark Kingpin~5700DDR5Teamgroup 6400 cl40
2x16700030-41-41-28-37 1T3090


----------



## domdtxdissar

jomama22 said:


> New motherboard (kingpin) and memory OC: (sorry pic is from my phone)
> 
> Edit: So is resolution modifier and/or resolution itself allowed? Not really clear what exactly the bounds are here. This is using 720p but no res modifier (pic was taken with 1080 for clarity)
> View attachment 2560849
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUJomama2238612900KSZ690 Dark Kingpin~5700DDR5Teamgroup 6400 cl40
> 2x16700030-41-41-28-37 1T3090


Think the consensus is:

Use 1080p lowest
resolution modifier is allowed
This is used as a CPU / memory benchmark, so to eliminate the GPU from the equation we want a 0% GPU bound scenario, which we get with resolution modifier.. Otherwise it would be only us with the strongest graphic card which could complete..


----------



## tcclaviger

RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUtcclaviger3975800X3DCrosshair 8 Extreme~4717DDR4GSKILLF4000C16-32GVKA416915-12-15-14-30-446950XTOC Formula


----------



## Luggage

http://imgur.com/a/97kLWl6



RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPULuggage2043800XX570 Gamping Pro Carbon~4500?DDR4GSKILLF4-3200C14-8GFX 4x8360016-16-16-16-28-42Zotac RTX 2070 Mini


----------



## Sartaro

I've got a new GPU to replace my 1080 ti, so I tried again. Messed with SMT on and off (off is better) and also ReBar/SAM (on is better), pushed BCLK by just 2 Mhz and a little OC on the GPU aswell. I don't want to push harder than this due to not knowing the limits of the hardware, so this is the best I can get with my setup:

With Resolution Scaling at default:

RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUSartaro3795800X3DAsrock B550 Steel Legend~4540DDR4Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600 C18 4x8373318-22-22-42-1T3080 Ti

Average CPU Game FPS

RankUserCPU Game FPSSartaro396











And with resolution scaling at minimum, I've got this:










Something its limiting my setup. No matter how hard I push the GPU clocks or the CPU bclk, the result is the above or worse. So I think I would need faster RAM. Or maybe its because my 3080 ti has only two 8pin connectors and a PL of 107% so it's power limited somehow, I don't know.
I've checked the temps (both CPU and GPU) while running the benchmark and everything is OK, nothing is throttling.
But I'm not an expert as you guys, so what do you think about the weird result with resolution scaling not making much or any difference? Am I CPU botlenecked?

Please, reply. I know this forum is much only for experts, but I'm curious on about what it's causing the result above.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Sartaro said:


> I've got a new GPU to replace my 1080 ti, so I tried again. Messed with SMT on and off (off is better) and also ReBar/SAM (on is better), pushed BCLK by just 2 Mhz and a little OC on the GPU aswell. I don't want to push harder than this due to not knowing the limits of the hardware, so this is the best I can get with my setup:
> 
> With Resolution Scaling at default:
> 
> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUSartaro3795800X3DAsrock B550 Steel Legend~4540DDR4Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600 C18 4x8373318-22-22-42-1T3080 Ti
> 
> Average CPU Game FPS
> 
> RankUserCPU Game FPSSartaro396
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And with resolution scaling at minimum, I've got this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something its limiting my setup. No matter how hard I push the GPU clocks or the CPU bclk, the result is the above or worse. So I think I would need faster RAM. Or maybe its because my 3080 ti has only two 8pin connectors and a PL of 107% so it's power limited somehow, I don't know.
> I've checked the temps (both CPU and GPU) while running the benchmark and everything is OK, nothing is throttling.
> But I'm not an expert as you guys, so what do you think about the weird result with resolution scaling not making much or any difference? Am I CPU botlenecked?
> 
> Please, reply. I know this forum is much only for experts, but I'm curious on about what it's causing the result above.


0% GPU bound tells you that your limited by CPU and/or memory  
(eveho 5800x3d is that fastet CPU available this game)


----------



## Sartaro

domdtxdissar said:


> 0% GPU bound tells you that your limited by CPU and/or memory
> (eveho 5800x3d is that fastet CPU available this game)


It makes sense. So the only think I could do is swap my memory for a faster one without changing the whole thing.
Thank you, domdtxdissar.


----------



## QXE

No resolution modifier.










OSCPUOCRAMGPUW1112900KS54/50 E core ht off7000 30-39-41-28 1TRX 6900 XT


----------



## Neo_Morpheus

I got 285 FPS, but the price point its ok👍


----------



## tubs2x4

Sartaro said:


> I've got a new GPU to replace my 1080 ti, so I tried again. Messed with SMT on and off (off is better) and also ReBar/SAM (on is better), pushed BCLK by just 2 Mhz and a little OC on the GPU aswell. I don't want to push harder than this due to not knowing the limits of the hardware, so this is the best I can get with my setup:
> 
> With Resolution Scaling at default:
> 
> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUSartaro3795800X3DAsrock B550 Steel Legend~4540DDR4Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600 C18 4x8373318-22-22-42-1T3080 Ti
> 
> Average CPU Game FPS
> 
> RankUserCPU Game FPSSartaro396
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And with resolution scaling at minimum, I've got this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something its limiting my setup. No matter how hard I push the GPU clocks or the CPU bclk, the result is the above or worse. So I think I would need faster RAM. Or maybe its because my 3080 ti has only two 8pin connectors and a PL of 107% so it's power limited somehow, I don't know.
> I've checked the temps (both CPU and GPU) while running the benchmark and everything is OK, nothing is throttling.
> But I'm not an expert as you guys, so what do you think about the weird result with resolution scaling not making much or any difference? Am I CPU botlenecked?
> 
> Please, reply. I know this forum is much only for experts, but I'm curious on about what it's causing the result above.


Your getting 384 fps…that’s not enough?


----------



## Sartaro

tubs2x4 said:


> Your getting 384 fps…that’s not enough?


For me, 60FPS is enough. But I'm pretty sure that's not the point of this thread.


----------



## Sartaro

I've created an updated results chart with the results posted after OP was banned. I hope I'm not breaking any rules by doing so.
I've only added the missing ones that followed the rules on first post, so only the ones that had properly self-report with proper screenshots and specs.
Resolution Modifier is not in the rules, so I'd discarded the results that had it modified.

Average FPS


RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPU1tcclaviger3975800X3DCrosshair 8 Extreme~4717DDR4GSKILLF4000C16-32GVKA416915-12-15-14-30-446950XT2bloot3955800X3DB550 Tomahawk~4614DDR4Crucial Ballistix 3600 C16 2x16380016-17-17-17-37-46-5466800XT3Simzak39112900KAsus Tuf D45300DDR4G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTR400015-16-16-28-3286900XT4Sartaro3795800X3DAsrock B550 Steel Legend~4540DDR4Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600 C18 4x8373318-22-22-42-1T3080ti5matique37512900KZ690i Unify5500DDR5Kingston 6000c40 16x2707030-41-41-283090 FE6geriatricpollywog37312900KAsus Strix D45734DDR4G.Skill F4-4000C14D-32GTEG429314-15-15-28-24030907Arni9036112900KZ690 Unify-X5520DDR5 Corsair CMT32GX5M2X6200C36682730-39-41-30-2T30908Domdtxdissar3535950XUnify X MAX~5000DDR4G.Skill F4-4000C14-16GTZR380013-14-12-22-34-22430909Theo1643135900XAsus Xhair VIII Hero5000DDR4G.Skill F4-3600C16Q-32GTZR373316-16-16-32-2593080ti10sugi0lover31111900KAsus Z590 Apex5400DDR4G.Skill F4-4000C14D-32GTRG401013-14-14-28-224309011zebra_hun30210850KAsus Z490 Apex5400DDR4G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZR440017-17-17-37-341308012techenth30110900KMWI Tomahawk5300DDR4G.Skill F4-4266C17D-32GTZRB440016-17-17-36-320308013Luggage30058000XMSI X570 Unify5050 PBODDR4G.Skill F4-3600C14-32GVKA380014-15-14-26-2402080ti14kryptonfly2566950XAsus X99 Strix4646DDR4G.Skill F4-3000C14Q-32GTZR340013-12-13-26-220309015Taraquin2505600XGB B550m S2H~4600DDR4Patriot Viper 4400cl19 2x8400016-16-16-29-2803060ti16JSHamlet2342495960XASUS X99-A4625DDR4G.Skill F4-3733C17-8GTZSW333313-13-13-26-2342 x 980ti

Average CPU Game FPS


RankUserCPU Game FPS1tcclaviger 4172bloot4063Sartaro3964Simzak3925Matique3796geriatricpollywog3737Arni903628Domdtxdissar3539Theo16431310sugi0lover31111Luggage30812zebra_hun30213techenth29114Taraquin26515kryptonfly25616JSHamlet234252

******
*_*


----------



## domdtxdissar

Sartaro said:


> I've created an updated results chart with the results posted after OP was banned. I hope I'm not breaking any rules by doing so.
> I've only added the missing ones that followed the rules on first post, so only the ones that had properly self-report with proper screenshots and specs.
> Resolution Modifier is not in the rules, so I'd discarded the results that had it modified.
> 
> Average FPS
> 
> 
> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPU1tcclaviger3975800X3DCrosshair 8 Extreme~4717DDR4GSKILLF4000C16-32GVKA416915-12-15-14-30-446950XT2bloot3955800X3DB550 Tomahawk~4614DDR4Crucial Ballistix 3600 C16 2x16380016-17-17-17-37-46-5466800XT3Simzak39112900KAsus Tuf D45300DDR4G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTR400015-16-16-28-3286900XT4Sartaro3795800X3DAsrock B550 Steel Legend~4540DDR4Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600 C18 4x8373318-22-22-42-1T3080ti5matique37512900KZ690i Unify5500DDR5Kingston 6000c40 16x2707030-41-41-283090 FE6geriatricpollywog37312900KAsus Strix D45734DDR4G.Skill F4-4000C14D-32GTEG429314-15-15-28-24030907Arni9036112900KZ690 Unify-X5520DDR5Corsair CMT32GX5M2X6200C36682730-39-41-30-2T30908Domdtxdissar3535950XUnify X MAX~5000DDR4G.Skill F4-4000C14-16GTZR380013-14-12-22-34-22430909Theo1643135900XAsus Xhair VIII Hero5000DDR4G.Skill F4-3600C16Q-32GTZR373316-16-16-32-2593080ti10sugi0lover31111900KAsus Z590 Apex5400DDR4G.Skill F4-4000C14D-32GTRG401013-14-14-28-224309011zebra_hun30210850KAsus Z490 Apex5400DDR4G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZR440017-17-17-37-341308012techenth30110900KMWI Tomahawk5300DDR4G.Skill F4-4266C17D-32GTZRB440016-17-17-36-320308013Luggage30058000XMSI X570 Unify5050 PBODDR4G.Skill F4-3600C14-32GVKA380014-15-14-26-2402080ti14kryptonfly2566950XAsus X99 Strix4646DDR4G.Skill F4-3000C14Q-32GTZR340013-12-13-26-220309015Taraquin2505600XGB B550m S2H~4600DDR4Patriot Viper 4400cl19 2x8400016-16-16-29-2803060ti16JSHamlet2342495960XASUS X99-A4625DDR4G.Skill F4-3733C17-8GTZSW333313-13-13-26-2342 x 980ti
> 
> Average CPU Game FPS
> 
> 
> RankUserCPU Game FPS1tcclaviger4172bloot4063Sartaro3964Simzak3925Matique3796geriatricpollywog3737Arni903628Domdtxdissar3539Theo16431310sugi0lover31111Luggage30812zebra_hun30213techenth29114Taraquin26515kryptonfly25616JSHamlet234252
> 
> *****
> _*


Great initiative but i think its a mistake to remove res mod results..


domdtxdissar said:


> Think the consensus is:
> 
> Use 1080p lowest
> resolution modifier is allowed
> *This is used as a CPU / memory benchmark,* so to eliminate the GPU from the equation we want a 0% GPU bound scenario, which we get with resolution modifier.. Otherwise it would be only us with the strongest graphic card which could complete..


By your self imposed rules you are remove over half of the results in this thread..
Its "CPU Game FPS" we are looking for here and those numbers are not affected by "resolution modifier" either way.


----------



## Sartaro

domdtxdissar said:


> Great initiative but i think its a mistake to remove res mod results..
> 
> By your self imposed rules you are remove over half of the results in this thread..
> Its "CPU Game FPS" we are looking for here and those numbers are not affected by "resolution modifier" either way.


I did not self impose anything, sir. I was just following the rules stated on the first page, the one with the rules that started the thread. 
I can redo the table with Res Modifier, but not today. It took me a long ass time to edit the table as it is because I'm not used to the format.


----------



## Sartaro

On a second thought, it would be unfair to include all the results on the same table, mixing results with and without Resolution Modifier. 
That's due to the simple fact that everyone did a run without touching the modifier, but not everyone did a run messing with the modifier which would give clear advantage to those that ran the benchmark with the resolution modifier on the lowest value compared to those that didn't depending on which GPU/CPU combo the person has.

So the edited table I did stands correct.


----------



## domdtxdissar

You are correct in regards to one thing, i should not ask people to do something i'm not prepared to do myself..
So i rolled up my sleeves and made a *CPU Game Average* list myself.

Unlimited *SotTR CPU+memory* 1080p lowest benchmark ranking: (updated 27.07.2022)

RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPU1​tcclaviger417​5800X3DCrosshair 8 Extreme~4717DDR4GSKILLF4000C16-32GVKA4169​15-12-15-14-30-44 6950XT2​domdtxdissar406​5800X3DMSI X570s Unify MAX~4450DDR4G.Skill F4-4000C14-16GTZR3800​13-8-14-12-22-34-216 1T3090​3​bloot406​5800X3DB550 Tomahawk~4614DDR4Crucial Ballistix 3600 C16 2x163800​16-17-17-17-37-46-546 6800XT4​tcclaviger401​5800X3DCrosshair 8 Extreme~4677DDR4GSKILLF4000C16-32GVKA4042​15-15-12-14-30-44-280 3080TI5​Simzak392​12900KFAsus Tuf D4~5300DDR4G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTR4000​15-16-16-28-3286900XT *(special OS)*6​Sartaro396​5800X3DAsrock B550 Steel Legend~4540DDR4Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600 C18 4x83733​18-22-22-42-1T 3080TI7​jomama22386​12900KS?~5700DDR5?7000​30-41-41-28-37 1T3090​8​QXE380​12900KS?~5400/5000 e-core/HT offDDR5?7000​30-39-41-28 1T 6900XT9​matique379​12900KZ690i Unify~5450DDR5Kingston 6000c40 16x27070​30-41-41-28 3090FE10​geriatricpollywog373​12900KAsus Strix D4~5734DDR4G.Skill F4-4000C14D-32GTEG4293​14-15-15-28-2403090​11​Antsu367​12900K?~5400/5100 cacheDDR4?4133​14-14-14-20 1T3090​12​Arni90362​12900KZ690 Unify-X~5520DDR5Corsair CMT32GX5M2X6200C366827​30-39-41-30-2T3090​13​kryptonfly359​12900k?????3090​14​domdtxdissar353​5950XMSI X570s Unify MAX~5100/5000DDR4G.Skill F4-4000C14-16GTZR3800​13-8-14-12-22-34-216 1T3090​15​Simzak341​10900K?~5200DDR4?4400​16-16-16-28-2886900XT *(special OS)*16​Theo164313​5900XAsus Crosshair VIII Hero~5000DDR4G.Skill F4-3600C16Q-32GTZR3733​16-16-16-32-259 3080TI17​sugi0lover311​11900K?~5400DDR4?4010​13-14-14-28-2243090​18​Luggage308​5800XMSI X570 UnifyPBO ~5050DDR4G.Skill F4-3600C14-32GVKA3800​14-15-14-26-240 2080TI19​techenth302​10900KMSI Tomahawk~5300DDR4G.Skill F4-4266C17D-32GTZRB4400​16-17-17-36-3203080​20​zebra_hun302​10850KAsus Z490 Apex~5400/5100 cacheDDR4G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZR4400​17-17-17-373080​21​Thanh Nguyen278​10900K?~5600DDR4???3090​22​Taraquin267​5600XGB B550m S2H~4600DDR4Patriot Viper 4400cl19 2x84000​16-16-16-29-45-280 3060TI23​kryptonfly256​6950XAsus X99 Strix~4646DDR4G.Skill F4-3000C14Q-32GTZR3400​13-12-13-26-2203090​24​JSHamlet234252​5960XASUS X99-A~4625DDR4G.Skill F4-3733C17-8GTZSW3333​13-13-13-26-234 2X 980TI25​Sartaro248​5800X?~4700DDR4?? 1080TI26​Luggage205​3800X?~4500DDR4?3600​16-16-16-16-28-42 2070 Mini
If you want GFX benchmark, feel free to make a new SotTR GPU ranking thread, and i will make a submission there 
Preferably maybe with "highest" graphic settings and higher resolution (1440p or 4k?)


----------



## Sartaro

domdtxdissar said:


> You are correct in regards to one thing, i should not ask people to do something i'm not prepared to do myself..
> So i rolled up my sleeves and made a *CPU Game Average* list myself.
> 
> Unlimited *SotTR CPU+memory* 1080p lowest benchmark ranking: (updated 27.07.2022)
> 
> RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPU1​tcclaviger417​5800X3DCrosshair 8 Extreme~4717DDR4GSKILLF4000C16-32GVKA4169​15-12-15-14-30-44 6950XT2​domdtxdissar406​5800X3DMSI X570s Unify MAX~4450DDR4G.Skill F4-4000C14-16GTZR3800​13-8-14-12-22-34-216 1T3090​3​bloot406​5800X3DB550 Tomahawk~4614DDR4Crucial Ballistix 3600 C16 2x163800​16-17-17-17-37-46-546 6800XT4​tcclaviger401​5800X3DCrosshair 8 Extreme~4677DDR4GSKILLF4000C16-32GVKA4042​15-15-12-14-30-44-280 3080TI5​Simzak392​12900KFAsus Tuf D4~5300DDR4G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTR4000​15-16-16-28-3286900XT *(special OS)*6​Sartaro396​5800X3DAsrock B550 Steel Legend~4540DDR4Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600 C18 4x83733​18-22-22-42-1T 3080TI7​jomama22386​12900KS?~5700DDR5?7000​30-41-41-28-37 1T3090​8​QXE380​12900KS?~5400/5000 e-core/HT offDDR5?7000​30-39-41-28 1T 6900XT9​matique379​12900KZ690i Unify~5450DDR5Kingston 6000c40 16x27070​30-41-41-28 3090FE10​geriatricpollywog373​12900KAsus Strix D4~5734DDR4G.Skill F4-4000C14D-32GTEG4293​14-15-15-28-2403090​11​Antsu367​12900K?~5400/5100 cacheDDR4?4133​14-14-14-20 1T3090​12​Arni90362​12900KZ690 Unify-X~5520DDR5Corsair CMT32GX5M2X6200C366827​30-39-41-30-2T3090​13​kryptonfly359​12900k?????3090​14​domdtxdissar353​5950XMSI X570s Unify MAX~5100/5000DDR4G.Skill F4-4000C14-16GTZR3800​13-8-14-12-22-34-216 1T3090​15​Simzak341​10900K?~5200DDR4?4400​16-16-16-28-2886900XT *(special OS)*16​Theo164313​5900XAsus Crosshair VIII Hero~5000DDR4G.Skill F4-3600C16Q-32GTZR3733​16-16-16-32-259 3080TI17​sugi0lover311​11900K?~5400DDR4?4010​13-14-14-28-2243090​18​Luggage308​5800XMSI X570 UnifyPBO ~5050DDR4G.Skill F4-3600C14-32GVKA3800​14-15-14-26-240 2080TI19​techenth302​10900KMSI Tomahawk~5300DDR4G.Skill F4-4266C17D-32GTZRB4400​16-17-17-36-3203080​20​zebra_hun302​10850KAsus Z490 Apex~5400/5100 cacheDDR4G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZR4400​17-17-17-373080​21​Thanh Nguyen278​10900K?~5600DDR4???3090​22​Taraquin267​5600XGB B550m S2H~4600DDR4Patriot Viper 4400cl19 2x84000​16-16-16-29-45-280 3060TI23​kryptonfly256​6950XAsus X99 Strix~4646DDR4G.Skill F4-3000C14Q-32GTZR3400​13-12-13-26-2203090​24​JSHamlet234252​5960XASUS X99-A~4625DDR4G.Skill F4-3733C17-8GTZSW3333​13-13-13-26-234 2X 980TI25​Sartaro248​5800X?~4700DDR4?? 1080TI26​Luggage205​3800X?~4500DDR4?3600​16-16-16-16-28-42 2070 Mini
> If you want GFX benchmark, feel free to make a new SotTR GPU ranking thread, and i will make a submission there
> Preferably maybe with "highest" graphic settings and higher resolution (1440p or 4k?)


You're very rude, sir. I think you've made the table out of spite. Also the table breaks the competition's rules, has a lot of missing information, and also has a lot of duplicated entries aswell. Not to mention that some entries are out of order in the table.
Good job.


----------



## mirzet1976

RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUmirzet19762705600XROG Strix B550-F Gaming~4850DDR4F4-3200C14 2x8380014-16-16-32-48-3846900XT


----------



## stahlhart

Probably a dumb question, but -- why is it that I am using the same settings as in the OP, but cannot get my GPU unbound like most of the rest of you?

I tried the recommended settings in the OP (re-bar off, e-cores disabled, hyperthreading disabled), and GPU Bound increased to 62%.

What am I doing wrong...?


----------



## tubs2x4

stahlhart said:


> View attachment 2568361
> 
> 
> Probably a dumb question, but -- why is it that I am using the same settings as in the OP, but cannot get my GPU unbound like most of the rest of you?
> 
> I tried the recommended settings in the OP (re-bar off, e-cores disabled, hyperthreading disabled), and GPU Bound increased to 62%.
> 
> What am I doing wrong...?


Isn’t the 6900 just better at this bench than 3080ti? Sam makes that much diff?


----------



## stahlhart

tubs2x4 said:


> Isn’t the 6900 just better at this bench than 3080ti? Sam makes that much diff?


That could very well be, but it appears to me that the point of this thread is to take the GPU out of the equation and measure only CPU and memory performance.

You become more CPU bound as you lower resolution, but we’re only going down to 1080p here, and I’m still 50% GPU bound at that resolution using the posted graphics settings.


----------



## tubs2x4

stahlhart said:


> That could very well be, but it appears to me that the point of this thread is to take the GPU out of the equation and measure only CPU and memory performance.
> 
> You become more CPU bound as you lower resolution, but we’re only going down to 1080p here, and I’m still 50% GPU bound at that resolution using the posted graphics settings.


Looks like you are on high settings. Should you be on lowest? The post above you has lowest settings. The OP also has lowest settings on.


----------



## stahlhart

tubs2x4 said:


> Looks like you are on high settings. Should you be on lowest? The post above you has lowest settings. The OP also has lowest settings on.












That's what it was -- wow, what a mental block. Honest to God, I completely missed that.

I guess I just had my NOIX fan moment.  Thanks much for the second set of eyes. Whatever you do, don't ever get old.

Still can't get down further than this, though -- assuming that this is the 3080Ti being just a little bit too much GPU for a 12700K? I guess I could try 1600x900 or 1360x768.


----------



## stahlhart

Yup.


----------



## tubs2x4

Maybe try one more step down to “lowest” settings.


----------



## stahlhart

tubs2x4 said:


> Maybe try one more step down to “lowest” settings.


----------



## 97pedro

RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPU97Pedro3655950XAsus Crosshair Vii Hero4900mhzDDR4G.Skill Flare X 3200Mhz Cl14 B die380014-15-14-22-2t3080


















Test done on 720p, because at 1080p I get bootlenecked by the GPU.

By best score yet with the 5950X


----------



## kicsipapucs

Hey guys, here's a weird one:


RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUkicsipapucs185E5-1650Asus Rampage IV Black Edition5135MHzDDR3Samsung G-Die OEM 4x2GB266610-12-13-15-1T2070










I'll rerun with an RTX 2080 Ti soon because the 2070 was being a bottleneck. HT off, mems do 75GB/s in AIDA.


----------



## zebra_hun

Can someone continue to support this topic?
Ive retested TR with my new ram profil, not much difference, but this is better, than my old bench.
10850k, z590 Apex, 3200CL14 G.Skill.
5500/[email protected] CL16:
308 fps
Thx
PS:
This is the best benchmark for gaming performanche, so keep it alive


----------



## domdtxdissar

97pedro said:


> Test done on 720p, because at 1080p I get bootlenecked by the GPU.
> 
> By best score yet with the 5950X





kryptonfly said:


> @tcclaviger : try to lessen "resolution modifier" to ease the load but I think you should have the same average. I tried once and it changed nothing. You can't do more than cpu game average = gpu bound at 0%. The best case scenario should be 399 avg with gpu bound 0% according to your last result but it's impossible with Nvidia to have gpu bound 0% despite these settings.
> 
> With my 3090 locked with SMI at 2205/+1128 I reach ~510 fps in gpu average, 469 fps with 2305 mhz boost seems low. Maybe you can improve gpu score.





domdtxdissar said:


> Think the consensus is:
> 
> Use 1080p lowest
> resolution modifier is allowed
> This is used as a CPU / memory benchmark, so to eliminate the GPU from the equation we want a 0% GPU bound scenario, which we get with resolution modifier.. Otherwise it would be only us with the strongest graphic card which could complete..


^^


----------



## Rafael_Morales

My Result.
Placa-Mãe - ASUS STRIX B550-F Processador - R5 5600X @ 4.8ghz IF2000 Placa de Video - Sapphire Pulse 6700XT Memoria - G.Skill FlareX 3200Mhz @ 4000Mhz CL16-15-15-30 Fonte - EVGA 850W GQ - Windows - Windows 10 Pro 21H2


----------



## domdtxdissar

Nothing earthshattering, but decent enough i guess

7950x
Memory @ 6100MT/s 28-36-36-28 1T
FCLK @ 2200mhz

*385 average cpu fps*









Screen with hwinfo open and rest of memory settings shown


----------



## Luggage

domdtxdissar said:


> Nothing earthshattering, but decent enough i guess
> 
> 7950x
> Memory @ 6100MT/s 28-36-36-28 1T
> FCLK @ 2200mhz
> 
> *385 average cpu fps*
> View attachment 2574992
> 
> 
> Screen with hwinfo open and rest of memory settings shown
> View attachment 2574993


Smt off?


----------



## domdtxdissar

Luggage said:


> Smt off?


ofc


----------



## kicsipapucs

RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUkicsipapucs243i5-9600KAsus Maximus XI Apex5000MHzDDR4G.Skill Trident Z 4266C19 A2 PCB non-RGB413315-15-32-320-1T2080 Ti


----------



## domdtxdissar

7950x is the second cpu after 5800x3d to break 400 avenge cpu fps! 

7950x
Memory @ 6100MT/s 28-36-36-28 2T
FCLK @ 2200mhz


----------



## stahlhart




----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Ryzen 9 5900X PBO
DDR4 3800 CL14 GSkill Trident Z Neo 2x16GB


----------



## Zero989

Work in progress... 6600 MT/s CL35-36-36-36 2T

13700KF 5800Mhz All-core 5.2Ghz ring HT Off

Windows 11 22H2


----------



## domdtxdissar

Asus rog crosshair x670e hero
7950x with handtuned PBO CO
3090 with unlimited bios
32GB DDR @ 6200MT/s 28-35-35-36-38-48
FCLK @ 2200mhz
Single m.2 sk hynix platinum p41 1tb
Custom liquid cooling
SotTR 1080p lowest = 408 average cpu fps 









SotTR 1080p high = 412 average cpu fps


----------



## evilhf

5800x3d @ 106.6bclk 1.28v curve -6 / ram 3776 cl14


ClassificaçãoDo utilizadorFPSCPUPlaca-mãeVelocidade do núcleoDDR4/DDR5Kit de memória RAMVelocidade da RAMTempos de RAMGPUevilhf4075800X3DAsus X570 Chrosshair Formula~4800 (bclk 106,6)DDR44x8 Gskill Royal 4000 [email protected] 3776 cl14-8-15-14-28-42-240377614-8-15-14-28-42-1T6900XT

FPS médio do jogo da CPU

ClassificaçãoDo utilizadorFPS do jogo da CPUevilhf419


----------



## Zero989

I'm back with the same result using lower clocks!!!

5650Mhz and less RAM Mhz but tighter timings. I absolutely get better results with e cores on as usage spills over 8 cores.

I could probably get 3 fps more with more CPU and ring, and another 10+ frames with Windows 10.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Me and a few other guys seems to have reach the same conclusion.. The more GPU bound you are, the higher CPU Game Average numbers you can get:

Both @Nizzen and @PhoenixMDA are seeing the same as me..
Can share some legit number with my decently clocked 3090 @ 520w powerlimit:

1080p high = *412 fps* average cpu fps @ *98%* gpu limited








1080p lowest= *408 fps* average cpu fps @ *28%* gpu limited








720p lowest = *402 fps* average cpu fps @ *1%* gpu limited








But watch what happens with the average cpu fps numbers when i enforce a low powerlimit for the graphic card:
*441 fps* average cpu fps















Conclusion is that the more GPU limited you are, the more time the CPU have to push up the average cpu game numbers..
Going forward i suggest that either we run with resolution modifier at minimum to limit the GPU bottleneck as much as possible, or we run the benchmark @ 720p lowest like the Russians do..
Anything above 10% GPU limited should not count in my book.

(all this started with a guy showing too good to be true numbers, with a 4090 which was ~90% GPU limited @ 1080p lowest)


----------



## Nizzen

This benchmark doesn't count anymore. Too much random.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

domdtxdissar said:


> Me and a few other guys seems to have reach the same conclusion.. The more GPU bound you are, the higher CPU Game Average numbers you can get:
> 
> Both @Nizzen and @PhoenixMDA are seeing the same as me..
> 
> Can share some legit number with my decently clocked 3090 @ 520w powerlimit
> 1080p high = *412 fps* average cpu fps @ *98%* gpu limited
> View attachment 2581015
> 
> 
> 1080p lowest= *408 fps* average cpu fps @ *28%* gpu limited
> View attachment 2581016
> 
> 
> 720p lowest = *402 fps* average cpu fps @ *1%* gpu limited
> View attachment 2581017
> 
> 
> But watch what happens with the average cpu fps numbers when i enforce a low powerlimit for the graphic card:
> *441 fps* average cpu fps
> View attachment 2581019
> View attachment 2581020
> 
> 
> Conclusion is that the more GPU limited you are, the more time the CPU have to push up the average cpu game numbers..
> Going forward i suggest that either we run with resolution modifier at minimum to limit the GPU bottleneck as much as possible, or we run the benchmark @ 720p lowest like the Russians do..
> Anything above 10% GPU limited should not count in my book.
> 
> (all this started with a guy showing too good to be true numbers, with a 4090 which was ~90% GPU limited @ 1080p lowest)


It´s so 1% GPU Limit is no 0%^^, you get also more FPS.
The problem is the most people only want to have the most FPS in community^^.

So it´s no really compare possible, i have the graphic driver set to prefer fast not to quality, my energy plan of windows is balanced 👈 and not for most FPS High performance.
Why i take it so....because that is what i normal use in 24/7.No special tricks or other stuff.

My CPU is on Stock👈 clock with UV Voltage, (bestcase szenario VID +0,065V Offset) with ecore´s, like out of the box.
If i want to compare performance it´s necessary to take same driver / Windows/ GPU and noadditional loads, that i really know ok that is similar.
My RTX3090 was fixed at 2Ghz/+1350Mem rbar on
Also no cracked version of the game, that make also difference.

I think it´s not important to have the most FPS, it´s good to show the possible performance but in normal szenario.
Many people looks in community and decide what they buy because of our shown performance.
If i do max FPS screens i think it´s important to say under that conditions it was possible 6ghz+ or over things, so the people know ok they don´t reach this value´s.
Or something is only possible if they deactivatet something, that make no sense in normal 24/7 use.


----------



## Zero989

Here it is, and no cheating either unlike you guys abusing GPU boundness . I could probably squeeze out another frame or two, but this'll do for now.

Core 0,1,2,3,4,7 are at 5759Mhz
Core 5,6 are at 5875Mhz

Ring 5068Mhz (Ring can do 52x so this would get me another 2fps)

E cores are around 4493Mhz

WTR_S is at 2
WTR_L is at 18 (can maybe do 17)


----------



## kryptonfly

RankUserFPSCPUMotherboardCore SpeedDDR4/DDR5RAM KitRAM SpeedRAM TimingsGPUkryptonfly38713900KStrix Z690 D45800DDR4G.Skill F4-3600C14D-32GTZNA430015-15-15-34-2883070

My turn with "just" a RTX 3070 (waiting a 4090), I used the resolution slider to the minimum because I'm 33% gpu bound without it.
P58/E47/R50 all cores enabled, ram 4300C15. I'm not using the last game version, maybe I can do a little better, I don't know. With just 8 P-cores (HT & E-cores disabled) and ring at 5.2 ghz I get less, 377 against 387 fps. I used to disable E-cores and HT with 12th gen but not necessary for 13th gen, suddenly CPU render is insane I find.


----------



## Gorod

happy to pass the much desired 400


----------



## storm-chaser

I finally have an MSI RX 5700 XT Gaming X 8GB video card on the way... interested in how the old z840 performs on a decent GPU. So I will run this next week sometime.


----------



## Antsu

Gorod said:


> happy to pass the much desired 400
> 
> View attachment 2586742


Please run at lower render res to eliminate GPU bottlenecking as that has been proven to skew the results. Very impressive stuff, I think you would be the fastest on this thread even with "proper" settings!


----------



## Gorod

Antsu said:


> Please run at lower render res to eliminate GPU bottlenecking as that has been proven to skew the results. Very impressive stuff, I think you would be the fastest on this thread even with "proper" settings!


Doesn't not seem to make much of a difference with 6900XT, just did a few more runs and got 404 with lowest scaling and 405 with 100% scaling. RAM is holding fps big time, had to crank it up to 6496 to get a few extra fps 




















Spoiler: Settings + CPU-Z + ZenTimings


----------



## yzonker

Gorod said:


> Doesn't not seem to make much of a difference with 6900XT, just did a few more runs and got 404 with lowest scaling and 405 with 100% scaling. RAM is holding fps big time, had to crank it up to 6496 to get a few extra fps
> 
> View attachment 2586829
> 
> View attachment 2586830
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Settings + CPU-Z + ZenTimings


It only matters if you are significantly GPU limited which the 6900xt is not. More so for a 3090.


----------



## stahlhart

60Hz...?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

With DDR4 4300cl15-15 6Ghz


----------



## sugi0lover

○ CPU : 13900K / P Cores 6.0Ghz / E Cores 4.7Ghz / Cache 5.2Ghz
○ VGA : RTX 4090 (watercooled & liquid metal applied) 
○ Ram OC : 8533-34-47-47-34 
○ MB : Z790 Apex 
○ Cooling : MO-RA3 420 PRO + Noctua NF-A14 Industrial out on balcony



Spoiler: My setup

















Spoiler: Result


----------



## stahlhart

Re: #165, #166:

DDR5 running twice as fast as DDR4, generational difference in GPU, 10 additional FPS...? Are the returns diminishing for this bench in particular, and/or current engines simply incapable of knowing what to do with the increased bandwidth?

The scores are impressive, in any event.


----------



## Gorod

🐢😯


----------



## Zero989

stahlhart said:


> Re: #165, #166:
> 
> DDR5 running twice as fast as DDR4, generational difference in GPU, 10 additional FPS...? Are the returns diminishing for this bench in particular, and/or current engines simply incapable of knowing what to do with the increased bandwidth?
> 
> The scores are impressive, in any event.


It wants low latency while being hungry for bandwidth. We are also running low graphics. If the game had RT shadows, lighting, reflections etc.... DDR5 would smoke DDR4.

High TRCD seems to really hurt latency, so we need next gen DDR5 modules, like 32 TRCD at 8000MT/s, while also being high density 32GB or 64GB per stick and <1.4v.

Cya in 2025.


----------



## SoldierRBT

13900KF 60/47/52 HT off 8400 34-47-47 720p (RTX 3090 too slow for 1080p).


----------



## kx11

13900kf 7200mhz DDR5, HT Off and graphics set to highest


----------



## domdtxdissar

Seems like AMD Radeon GFX driver is alittle faster than Nvidia in this game..

1080p lowest = 409 average cpu game average









Hardware and settings:








720p lowest = 413 average cpu game average


----------



## Zero989

kx11 said:


> 13900kf 7200mhz DDR5, HT Off and graphics set to highest
> 
> View attachment 2591206
> View attachment 2591207


Are your RAM timings tweaked? Seems low. 364 is about what I get with 6200 MT/s, w/ worse CPU clocks and less cache.


----------



## kx11

Zero989 said:


> Are your RAM timings tweaked? Seems low. 364 is about what I get with 6200 MT/s, w/ worse CPU clocks and less cache.
> 
> View attachment 2592957


Yes they're actually 8000mt but my mobo doesn't run that so i tweaked them to CL32 7200mt, i'll do the test again just to make sure


----------



## kx11

Yeah the thin radiator on my cpu is causing major throttling, this is with 100% fans speed (radiator is thermaltake C360 pacific)

CPU clock was 5.8~9ghz


----------



## Zero989

kx11 said:


> Yeah the thin radiator on my cpu is causing major throttling, this is with 100% fans speed (radiator is thermaltake C360 pacific)
> 
> CPU clock was 5.8~9ghz


If you are throttling in something like TR then you will probably autoshutoff with any stress test. That makes no sense... What is your voltage?


----------



## kx11

Zero989 said:


> If you are throttling in something like TR then you will probably autoshutoff with any stress test. That makes no sense... What is your voltage?


Rarely i get shutdowns during benchmarks

Voltages are not crazy at all


----------



## kryptonfly

kx11 said:


> Rarely i get shutdowns during benchmarks
> 
> Voltages are not crazy at all
> 
> View attachment 2593083


Is your radiator hot during bench ? It's perhaps a bad mounting or...
I had to delid my 13900K because temp was so quick to the throttling, I gained 20°C with Supercool direct die.


----------



## kx11

kryptonfly said:


> Is your radiator hot during bench ? It's perhaps a bad mounting or...
> I had to delid my 13900K because temp was so quick to the throttling, I gained 20°C with Supercool direct die.


Yeah probably can't have it running solid 5.9ghz all times, also my mobo got a monoblock so..


----------



## kx11

Hmmm something isn't right, looks like thermals are good after running the benchmak !!!


----------

