2016 Hardware Benchmark - DCS World 1.5.x - Page 2 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-02-2016, 11:16 PM   #11
tiborrr
Junior Member
 
tiborrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 28
Default

Hello guys!

More updates - I have started with GPU architecture testing. Found two GPUs aren't working (GTX 750, GTX 650 Ti).

Spent a ton of time trying to get 4K VSR on a R9 280/290/390 (CGN) family (since I'm testing on a 2560px monitor using NV DSR / AMD VSR for 4K emulation). The problem is these cards can only put out 4K@30Hz over HDMI 1.4.

AMD is currently not a good choice for 'cheap' TV 4K. The problem is that these R9 200/300/Fury/Nano cards can only put out 4K@30Hz over HDMI 1.4. The only way to get 4K@60Hz on current gen AMD is to use DisplayPort (DP) video outputs, which works great - 4K PC monitors with DP video inputs are readily available, however DP 4K TVs are not. If your 4K TV only supports HDMI it's better if you get NVIDIA. Alternatively you can purchase DP 1.2 to HDMI 2.0 adapter which bypasses all of the aforementioned issues. At the time of writing (Jan 2016) the cheapest 55" 4K@60Hz TVs with DP video inputs are still 8-10x more expensive than their HDMI 2.0 counterparts.

Spoiler:

5.6 GPU architecture impact on the FPS:

Test system:
- CPU: Intel Core i7 5775C @ 4GHz core / 3.3GHz uncore
- MB: ASUS ROG Maximus VII Gene
- RAM: 4x4GB DDR3-2133 C10 12-12-28 1T @ 1.35V
- GPU: (various)
- Drive: 128GB Crucial BX100
- OS: Windows 10 Pro x64
- Cooling: EK-XLC Predator 240 - liquid cooled CPU; factory cooling on GPUs
- Monitor: Dell 2713HM
- Drivers: Nvidia 361.43 / AMD Crimson 15.12

Results so far after half of the GPUs tested:



GPU Architecture Impact result analysis:
- Please allow for +/- 2% result accuracy. The overlapping graphs peak/dips are always a good sign of a reliable data aquisition.
- Currently all the tested GPUs are powerful enough to drive FHD resolution, GTX 970 leads the pack showing higher minimum FPS than the rest of the contenders
- Generally, NVIDIA cards offer higher minimum- and lower max FPS


Last edited by tiborrr; 01-03-2016 at 04:30 PM.
tiborrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2016, 06:58 AM   #12
grefte
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Nehterlands
Posts: 3
Default

Hello, Sorry for the layout, It is my first post and cannot figure out why I'm unable to use new lines. Thanks a lot, I'm getting new PC gear ready for playing DCS again and are using your information for wat to buy. Are you using the DisplayPort for 4K resolution? Specs of Gigabyte GV-R939G1 GAMING-8GD mentions 4K@60Hz on the DisplayPort. Dual Link DVI: 2560 x 1600 @60Hz DisplayPort: 4096 x 2160 @60Hz HDMI: 4096 x 2160 @24Hz, 3840×2160 @30 Hz Specs of Gigabyte GV-N970IXOC-4GD are: Dual Link DVI: 2560 x 1600 @60Hz DisplayPort: 4096 x 2160 @60Hz HDMI: 3840 x 2160 @60Hz / 4096 x 2160 @24Hz Can you mention which graphic card you are using for the test?

Last edited by grefte; 01-03-2016 at 07:05 AM. Reason: layout
grefte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2016, 11:39 AM   #13
tiborrr
Junior Member
 
tiborrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grefte View Post
Hello, Sorry for the layout, It is my first post and cannot figure out why I'm unable to use new lines. Thanks a lot, I'm getting new PC gear ready for playing DCS again and are using your information for wat to buy. Are you using the DisplayPort for 4K resolution? Specs of Gigabyte GV-R939G1 GAMING-8GD mentions 4K@60Hz on the DisplayPort. Dual Link DVI: 2560 x 1600 @60Hz DisplayPort: 4096 x 2160 @60Hz HDMI: 4096 x 2160 @24Hz, 3840×2160 @30 Hz Specs of Gigabyte GV-N970IXOC-4GD are: Dual Link DVI: 2560 x 1600 @60Hz DisplayPort: 4096 x 2160 @60Hz HDMI: 3840 x 2160 @60Hz / 4096 x 2160 @24Hz Can you mention which graphic card you are using for the test?
Hello grefte,

just to clarify: AMD card have DisplayPort (DP) output working at 4K@60Hz, but not HDMI (since it's an older 1.4 implementation). So - if you are using AMD for 4K, make sure you get a 4K monitor with DisplayPort (DP).

Either R9 390X or GTX 970 will do the job at 4K just fine and both are good choice as long as the price is about the same.

However, GTX 970 has higher overclocking potential than 390X and draws substantially less power. I have managed to overclock mine to 1492MHz GPU without adjusting any voltage and such card scores about 78FPS average at 4K resolution in my benchmark.

For comparison: R9 Nano did 67FPS @ 100% Power Limit; 71FPS @ 125% Power Limit).

More results to follow in the afternoon!

Best Regards,
Niko

Last edited by tiborrr; 01-03-2016 at 11:48 AM.
tiborrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2016, 12:07 PM   #14
///Rage
Veteran
 
///Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,036
Default

This is just a fantastic resource!!

I cant rep you enough and it needs to be stickied.

Im surprised the R9 Nano is slower than the 390x/970! Isnt it basically a downclocked FuryX?
__________________

www.51bisons.com

51st TS 96.43.128.170
///Rage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2016, 12:39 PM   #15
grefte
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Nehterlands
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiborrr View Post
Hello grefte,

just to clarify: AMD card have DisplayPort (DP) output working at 4K@60Hz, but not HDMI (since it's an older 1.4 implementation). So - if you are using AMD for 4K, make sure you get a 4K monitor with DisplayPort (DP).

Either R9 390X or GTX 970 will do the job at 4K just fine and both are good choice as long as the price is about the same.

However, GTX 970 has higher overclocking potential than 390X and draws substantially less power. I have managed to overclock mine to 1492MHz GPU without adjusting any voltage and such card scores about 78FPS average at 4K resolution in my benchmark.

For comparison: R9 Nano did 67FPS @ 100% Power Limit; 71FPS @ 125% Power Limit).

More results to follow in the afternoon!

Best Regards,
Niko
Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense to go for NVIDIA.
I'm very curious for the results of the other NVIDIA cards.
grefte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2016, 12:48 PM   #16
Brisse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,114
Default

You can get HDMI2.0 from current AMD cards using a reasonably priced adapter now. This is a fairly recent development so I guess most people don't know about it yet

http://www.club-3d.com/index.php/pro...e-adapter.html

With the extra price of the adapter considered, you might as well choose Nvidia to begin with though, if you require HDMI2.0, but for those who already has an AMD card and need to expand it with HDMI2.0 functionality, this is a reasonable option.
Brisse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2016, 12:52 PM   #17
Rogue Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,531
Default

Very useful Post, Book marked for sure!
Rogue Trooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2016, 01:00 PM   #18
Brisse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ///Rage View Post
Im surprised the R9 Nano is slower than the 390x/970! Isnt it basically a downclocked FuryX?
Yes, it's a down-clocked FuryX. It is similar architecture to the R9 290/390 series, but much larger, which means it's has more parallel compute power. Think of it as a 4 core CPU (290/390) versus a 6 core CPU (Fury) with slower clocks than the 4 core. It seems DCS appreciates the higher clocks more than the amount of stream processors.

And yes, Fury has HBM, but the 290 and 390 never suffered from memory bandwidth to begin with, so HBM doesn't really do much in this case. It easily shows when one tries to over-clock the memory on a 290/390. It over-clocks a lot but there's no significant performance gain, which means the memory bandwidth is already good enough to begin with.
Brisse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2016, 04:20 PM   #19
tiborrr
Junior Member
 
tiborrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 28
Default

Thank you all for warm reception!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ///Rage View Post
Im surprised the R9 Nano is slower than the 390x/970! Isnt it basically a downclocked FuryX?
The R9 Nano is indeed a great GPU and I love it for it. However it has 0 overclocking potential and the GPU cannot sustain 1GHz clockspeed at any given load - it will underclock all the way down to 800MHz or even less in order to stay within the ~ 175W TDP. Unlike R9 Nano, the R9 390X and GTX 970 run at pretty much maxed out frequencies as the thermal (not power) limit is not reached yet (also, the GTX 970 is the MSI variant with higher than reference clocks). This is true for the R9 Nano unless you unlock 'power limit' -once you do (e.g. +25%), the power draw increases by ~ 50W. The additional compute units of R9 Fury GPU seem to be starved somehow as they offer only minor performance increase over 290X/390X. Basically the R9 Nano offers the performance of the R9 290X/390X at half the power. It's a 4K card and this is where it starts to shine. @Brisse gives good explanation on this topic as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisse View Post
You can get HDMI2.0 from current AMD cards using a reasonably priced adapter now. This is a fairly recent development so I guess most people don't know about it yet

http://www.club-3d.com/index.php/pro...e-adapter.html

With the extra price of the adapter considered, you might as well choose Nvidia to begin with though, if you require HDMI2.0, but for those who already has an AMD card and need to expand it with HDMI2.0 functionality, this is a reasonable option.
Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post: "DP to HDMI 2.0 cable adapter is suppose to come out any day now but..."

It's indeed a function worth mentioned, hence I have reworded the tl;dr lessions learned section in my 1st post:

What have we learned so far (tl;dr):
Compiled list of lessions learned:
Quote:
1. If budget allows - get a fast (overclockable) quad-core CPU! Yes, DCS scales great up to 4 cores!
2. Overclock your CPU: Frequency is the king!

3. Faster memory yields noticable performance gains, especially in the minimum FPS range
4. Flying in 4K on PC: On AMD R9 series - make sure to use DisplayPort (DP) 1.2 for 4K@60Hz - do not use HDMI as HDMI 1.4 isn't cutting it (only 30Hz refresh rate). On NVIDIA GTX 9xx series use either DP1.2 or HDMI (supports HDMI 2.0).
5. Flying in 4K on TV: AMD is currently not a good choice for 'cheap' TV 4K. The problem is that these R9 200/300/Fury/Nano cards can only put out 4K@30Hz over HDMI 1.4. The only way to get 4K@60Hz on current gen AMD is to use DisplayPort (DP) video outputs, which works great - 4K PC monitors with DP video inputs are readily available, however DP 4K TVs are not. If your 4K TV only supports HDMI it's better if you get NVIDIA. Alternatively you can purchase DP 1.2 to HDMI 2.0 adapter which bypasses all of the aforementioned issues. At the time of writing (Jan 2016) the cheapest 55" 4K@60Hz TVs with DP video inputs are still 8-10x more expensive than their HDMI 2.0 counterparts.

Last edited by tiborrr; 01-03-2016 at 06:28 PM.
tiborrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2016, 06:25 PM   #20
xxJohnxx
Senior Member
 
xxJohnxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,343
Default

Thank you for doing all this research and testing, really appricated! I know how time consuming it can be, so kudos for that!

Just as a bit of an input, maybe mark the tl;dr in the first post a bit better. While it is a good read containing a lot of information, a lot of people sure would quickly like to see the results.
__________________
Check out my YouTube: xxJohnxx

Intel i7 6800k watercooled | ASUS Rampage V Edition 10 | 32 GB RAM | Asus GTX1080 watercooled
xxJohnxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
amd, bottleneck, core, cpu, fps, geforce, intel, nvidia, performance, speed

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:10 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.