My AC benchmark test results.

[apex11]

Only just used this test and wanted to share my results.

I use v sync on in game but the benchmark is uncapped:

points: 22215
FPS: AVG = 151
MIN=72
MAX= 210
VARIANCE = 16
CPU =88%
LOADING TIME = 32s

GPU: GEFORCE GTX 1060 3GB 1920X1080
OS VERSION 6.2.9200
CPU CORES 4
AA 4X AF 4X SHDW 1024 BLUR 0
WORLD DETAIL 3 SMOKE 0
PP QLT 3 HDR 1 FXAA 0 GLR 3 DOF 3 RAYS 0 HEAT 0


So basically is this any good, i run setting rather low or off so can i turn more on? If i run non v sync it seems really all over the shop so how an i help with that? Its seems i don't drop below 60 fps ever but still i find v sync is better for me, so any tips? (aside from upgrading my CPU, i know it is the weak link.)
cheers.

 

[Rogerbee]

Those are FPS values I'd kill for. I can just hit 60!

 

[Rogerbee]

With high quality settings in 1920x1080 with 75hz I can only get the fps up to 35.6, but, the CPU load is significantly less. Film speed is 24fps, so really I should be happy with that. I can see everything and the cars are still fast. Why do gamers want frame rates above the normal persistence of vision anyway!?

EDIT:

Just been chucking a Nissan Skyline round LA Canyons, smooth as butter! Happy as a pig is where pigs love to be!

 

[RasmusP]

With high quality settings in 1920x1080 with 75hz I can only get the fps up to 35.6, but, the CPU load is significantly less. Film speed is 24fps, so really I should be happy with that. I can see everything and the cars are still fast. Why do gamers want frame rates above the normal persistence of vision anyway!?

EDIT:

Just been chucking a Nissan Skyline round LA Canyons, smooth as butter! Happy as a pig is where pigs love to be!

I'm not really wanting to enter this discussion but just about eyes and framerate: pick a strobe light and raise the frequency until you can't see it flickering anymore. You'll be astonished where that is.
We have a very precise strobe at my university for experiments etc and my "flicker free frequency" was somewhere around 200 hz.
It became kinda "steady" at around 100 Hz.
This 24 frames like in cinema movies is just pure misinformation. What 24 fps should be called:
"the framerate where the human eyes don't see single images anymore but start to see a fluent motion".
Back then they searched for exactly that framerate to get an at least somehow satisfying movie experience on their way too small movie rolls.
It doesn't mean that the eyes won't see a difference up to whatever number (for me around 200 Hz/fps).

BTW there's also a difference between light pulse or steady-refresh.
Example old crt monitors vs modern TFT.
At 60 hz/fps you have 16.6ms between the frames.
A crt monitor would beam the image visible for like 2-5ms (only example numbers) and then go dark until the next image. A TFT crystal more or less stays in its position. So you have the image visible for around 10-15 ms (and with bad screens even longer so you see ghosting).

That's why I always set my crt monitors to 100 Hz instead of 60. It flickered for me otherwise. But you didn't need vsync with them, which is cool!

Sorry, always have to do this when I read about the human eye only being able to see 24 hz/fps...

 

[Rogerbee]

Just go with whatever works for you.

 

[Peter Boese]

I have a real newbie question.
When I run AC benchmark I get a AVG of around 120. But then I play the game (practice mode with no other cars) I get 60, when I race with 15 cars I still get 60. I have not turned on fps limit. What I'm I doing wrong?

The AC benchmark is just for bench graphics. It is a played replay. So the CPU consumption is much smaller than in a race where the AI is calculated.

 

[Rogerbee]

I have actually been getting more FPS than I first thought. I can get 60 out of that Spa bench on CM, but, on my own the last reading was 99.3.

 

[Monyx]

Am I better off capping frame rate @60fps? My GPU is in the minority here being AMD Vega 56 8GB because my rig was built for Hackintosh video editor first, gaming second

AC VERSION: 1.16.4 (x64)
POINTS: 10476
FPS: AVG=71 MIN=10 MAX=120 VARIANCE=5 CPU=40%

LOADING TIME: 27s
GPU: (3840x2160)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 28
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:8X SHDW:2048 BLUR:0
WORLD DETAIL: 4 SMOKE:5
PP: QLT:4 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:4 DOF:4 RAYS:1 HEAT:0

 

[Peter Boese]

Am I better off capping frame rate @60fps? My GPU is in the minority here being AMD Vega 56 8GB because my rig was built for Hackintosh video editor first, gaming second

AC VERSION: 1.16.4 (x64)
POINTS: 10476
FPS: AVG=71 MIN=10 MAX=120 VARIANCE=5 CPU=40%

LOADING TIME: 27s
GPU: (3840x2160)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 28
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:8X SHDW:2048 BLUR:0
WORLD DETAIL: 4 SMOKE:5
PP: QLT:4 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:4 DOF:4 RAYS:1 HEAT:0

For 4k the result is pretty good. I would cap 60hz only if you see tearing and if you can live with the lower fps.

 

[Monyx]

For 4k the result is pretty good. I would cap 60hz only if you see tearing and if you can live with the lower fps.

Yep I see occasional screen tearing will do. My TV supports 1080@120Hz and youtubers say 'oh you will be faster and have more accurate turn in with higher refresh rate'. But the lower HD res was too much of a distraction (77" OLED TV), much prefer 4K detail even if at only 60Hz & 60fps.

 

[markus becker]

Full Flex Mode ON


AC VERSION: 1.16.4 (x64)
POINTS: 26335
FPS: AVG=179 MIN=31 MAX=212 VARIANCE=9 CPU=90%

LOADING TIME: 19s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 (3840x2160)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 8
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:4X SHDW:1024 BLUR:0
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:5
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:0 GLR:5 DOF:0 RAYS:1 HEAT:1