Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - FPS COMPARISON 1.02.14821 vs 1.03.15527 @ 09-08-2011

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - FPS COMPARISON 1.02.14821 vs 1.03.15527 @ 09-08-2011 (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=25991)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icebear (Post 334088)

hmmm...don't think you got me right. I'm talking about the video RAM of the graphic adapter, not about SSD or HDD. Anyway, I'm running a 256GB Crucial m4 and a 1TB Western Digital Black Caviar at SATA6. Tested CloD on both drives with no remarkable difference, except the loading times.

A game that gets better performance from a faster disk accept occasional loading times is in serious need of optimization... Regarding RAM memory speed there is in my experience very little performance to gain from that for gaming. A few percent maybe but never in the same league as changing GPU (and the memory bandwidth of that GPU) or CPU (which naturally in many cases gives a good memory speed boost as new CPU:s have faster memory access through new chipsets, memory types etc). But if you have an i7 2600k for example and go from memory clocked at 1600Mhz to 1866Mhz or even 2000Mhz the performance gain in a game like CoD should be hard to measure... Someone sure have some benchmark available.

EDIT:

Link to comparison of different memory speeds and it's impact on the Sandy Bridge chipset (which most of us with new rigs use here):

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20377/3

This is my 3DMark Score before and after adding more RAM:

P12 688 with 4GB RAM
P12 718 with 12GB RAM

The bottlenecks of this sim are CPU+RAM.

ANY graphics settings here have minor FPS impact than number of AI aircrafts and ground units ingame - even if I can't see these units.

I believe that the direction needed is focus in more RAM usage and multicore suport. Looking at the graphics engine only is poor. Test for yourselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mazex (Post 334297)

A game that gets better performance from a faster disk accept occasional loading times is in serious need of optimization...

Exactly. You can't have a game with massive stutters, an inability to run SLI, and crazy FPS dips and then have "the fix" be a SSD. I've got one...guess what, it still runs like something is broken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUDLEY1977 (Post 333586)

Hi all, based on recorded FPS over the Black Death Track here are the graphs.

1920 x 1080
Q9550 GTX 570 Win7 64 4G DDR2
no OC'ing, all stock.

Both tracks were synced up over a total of 226 seconds of recorded FPS during the Black Death. Over this period the AVERAGE FPS prepatch was 31 and post beta it was 24 for a delta of 7.

Particularly interesting is that for the first 1/2 of the time the FPS hit between 5 and 10 FPS, but over the remainder there are large sections where for extended periods the decrease in FPS swings in large blocks from 10 to 20 and 30 FPS.

This pattern in many regards matched online MultiPlayer. In game the new Beta is noticeably less smooth, and based on our comparisons last night we noticed the new: sounds, explosive effects, tracer, beaches, water color and waves, sun blinding, loss of clicks in cockpits, the more subtle in cockpit shadows, excessive fog in all depths of atmosphere, fog painted over all ground textures ( like spilled milk) even at close up.
Terrain textures appear a bit hazed out / blurry.

Both versions have components that beg attention. But overall the FPS drop IS noticeable, the fog is way too permissive and painted on EVERYTHING, the sound is a large step in the right direction but it needs proper Mixing and has some obvious shortcomings.

So there you have it an objective analysis of the FPS impact. I have others but now I just want to fly after a long stressful day at the Programmer Ivory Towers (The PIT).

:)

Nice Work!

I wish all FPS video testing presented here was done this well!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icebear (Post 334088)

hmmm...don't think you got me right. I'm talking about the video RAM of the graphic adapter....

....they don't want to understand me. :( Or do they ignore me ? ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM (Post 334370)

Sorry, have to disagree. I use a i2600 and 8 Gb ram and CoD hardly uses it. 50% of first core is used and only 15 to 20% (often less) of the other ones. ~ 6 Gb ram is enough for this game, but as always the more the better but that's purely meant for Windows to be used.

The bottleneck is still the game itself; it simply does not make optimal use of latest multi core cpu's.

What it does however is, is put a hefty load on the GPU when you run near max video settings.

Rgs,
FP

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fall_Pink? (Post 334469)

So, you are talking the same: CloD don't use multicore CPU power in an optimal way. And the game itself uses only 1.5GB. It's not good if FPS drop with lots of objects NOT IN SIGHT.

CloD uses all GPU power available. And if the game doen not make optimal use of latest mulit core GPU's, the bottleneck IS CPU and RAM...

Mazex same system specs as you and since upgrading to those runs really nice,

Quote:

Originally Posted by SsSsSsSsSnake (Post 334486)

Mazex same system specs as you and since upgrading to those runs really nice,

I agree, I really don't have any performance issues in CoD. Occasionally it can have some stuttering when something goes boom or some loading occurs - but that can happen in other games too. Even though it feels like it will be possible to get higher fps when the game is optimized it's really OK now on my rig at least. Around 50-70 normally in a battle at low altitude running on "high" settings... I think I get about the same fps in RoF which has a less ground details and objects.