Benchmark for Black Shark?

[ocram]

Is it possible to get a benchmark for BS? Maybe via replay?

I thought it would be nice to have an overview with all the different hardware configs the users have.

[Groove]

The beta team used a replay track with heavy action in it and than everybody had to run a 900 seconds FRAPs in benchmark mode.

[Nate--IRL--]

Can we get that track? It would be good to have a standard track that everybody could use and compare against. Call it BSbenchmark.trk or something.

 

Nate

[Bucic]

It would also be great to have something like ArmA Mark http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Mr_Tea/ArmAMark.jpg but the standarized track will do just fine.

[JimMack]

Can we get that track? It would be good to have a standard track that everybody could use and compare against. Call it BSbenchmark.trk or something.

 

Nate

 

OK - give me 24hrs as I am travelling at the moment, and I'll upload test track. It does not test everything, but was a benchmark for optimising graphics.

[Outlawed]

Thanks much...

[JimMack]

Can we get that track? It would be good to have a standard track that everybody could use and compare against. Call it BSbenchmark.trk or something.

 

Nate

 

This is the test we used to evaluate graphic and activity tuning, across all the different PC configurations that the Beta testers are using.

It is a combination of graphics views and heavy AI activity.

It runs for 15 minutes.

Using FRAPS, we evaluated min/max/av fps, then looked at the log by each second to evaluate what was causing a slowdown.

 

Please note: As we continue to fine tune the English version of Black Shark, tracks do not always play back the same in the English version as the Russian version. So if you are posting any comments, identify if you are using the current Russian version, or the forthcoming English version. This track does show some different views between the Russian and English versions.

 

Note to Mission Builders:- If you have too much AI combat within a particular second then any system will crash.

To explain: If at the start of a mission, you have 400 tanks immediately firing at each other, the system will crash (unless you are running on a mainframe!).

So fine tune your combat at any one point in time.

This is the elegance of the "trigger and events" system developed by Wags. It enables activity to be fine tuned as experienced by the player.

It overcomes the problems of the "bubble" system in Falcon, which tried to overcome the excessive activity problem by only showing events close to the player.

As you know, in the DCS engine one can observe events that are taking place 200 kms away.

Hope this helps

Jim

Edited November 30, 2008 by JimMack
more info

[Maverick-GER-]

Really nice track you got there, i just watched it and i had like minimum 4 fps and maximum 15 when the helicopter was facing towards the battle =) and around 27-35 fps when the helicopter was turning away from battle ( i had the camera on external view F2 and i always moved my cam to be behind that helicopter)

 

My specs are:

core 2 duo E4400 @ 2 ghz

Radeon x1950 Pro

2x 1gb G.E.I.L Dimm DDR2-800

Windows XP SP3

[Bucic]

Really nice track you got there, i just watched it and i had like minimum 4 fps and maximum 15 when the helicopter was facing towards the battle =) and around 27-35 fps when the helicopter was turning away from battle ( i had the camera on external view F2 and i always moved my cam to be behind that helicopter)

 

My specs are:

core 2 duo E4400 @ 2 ghz

Radeon x1950 Pro

2x 1gb G.E.I.L Dimm DDR2-800

Windows XP SP3

 

If the results are to be comparable one shall not alter camera views coded in the trk file.

[JimMack]

Really nice track you got there, i just watched it and i had like minimum 4 fps and maximum 15 when the helicopter was facing towards the battle =) and around 27-35 fps when the helicopter was turning away from battle ( i had the camera on external view F2 and i always moved my cam to be behind that helicopter)

 

My specs are:

core 2 duo E4400 @ 2 ghz

Radeon x1950 Pro

2x 1gb G.E.I.L Dimm DDR2-800

Windows XP SP3

 

For the test to be accurate for comparison purposes. Do not change views during the track. Let it play as seen.

[Maverick-GER-]

=) was running it less as a benchmark than to check the track out... for the above mentioned method i would need FRAPS now anyhow (i used in game fps before) .

Anyhow as i said very nice track there and maybe ill get me fraps later and do a benchmark with it =)

[peterj]

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

37789, 900000, 7, 115, 41.988

 

E6600, 8800GTS, Vista 64-bit

1280x1024 High/visib range medium

 

Edit, setting nvidia graphics to quality and 4x AA/8x AF gave better results for some reason,

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

53995, 900000, 22, 225, 59.994

Edited November 30, 2008 by peterj

[ocram]

Before we run the benchmark we should agree on the resolution and AA / AF settings.

[Bucic]

Before we run the benchmark we should agree on the resolution and AA / AF settings.

 

AND ingame settings. And there's more to unify! I've seen blokes who run benchmarks with Vertical Sync turned on :doh: The question is - is it worth it. This way it will be a chore to prepare the sim and the driver settings for the benchmark. Another option is "the result + settings" but this is also a chore (typing in all the settings by hand - both ingame and driver settings).

[Cloudman]

Your right. Too many variables, but still can get an idea...

 

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

54856, 911992, 21, 157, 60.150

 

amd 6000+ @ 3124mhz

4 gigs pc 6400

2x raptors raid 0

creative fatality sound

bfg gtx 260 216 oc

vista 64

180.60 nvidia beta drivers

8xaa 8x af vysync off- hi quality 2 frames rendered ahead-

37" westy 1080p LCD 1920x1080

 

That's about it.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Cloudman

[Bucic]

Your right. Too many variables, but still can get an idea...

 

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

54856, 911992, 21, 157, 60.150

 

amd 6000+ @ 3124mhz

4 gigs pc 6400

2x raptors raid 0

creative fatality sound

bfg gtx 260 216 oc

vista 64

180.60 nvidia beta drivers

8xaa 8x af vysync off- hi quality 2 frames rendered ahead-

37" westy 1080p LCD 1920x1080

 

That's about it.

 

Hate to be picky but what about...

affinity trick (used or not)

ingame settings (vis range, scenes, water...) :)

 

Edit:

Don't mind this post order. Sorry for this.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Bucic

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Your right. Too many variables, but still can get an idea...

 

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

54856, 911992, 21, 157, 60.150

 

amd 6000+ @ 3124mhz

4 gigs pc 6400

2x raptors raid 0

creative fatality sound

bfg gtx 260 216 oc

vista 64

180.60 nvidia beta drivers

8xaa 8x af vysync off- hi quality 2 frames rendered ahead-

37" westy 1080p LCD 1920x1080

 

That's about it.

WOW!!! You are lucky! This machine as well as FPS looks impressive!

[coopercobra03]

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

49752, 911441, 9, 141, 54.586

 

Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 Conroe @2.66Ghz (OC @ 3.2Ghz)

G.Skill 2gb Ram

Geforce 8800Gts (OC Core@707 Mem@1024)

 

 

Edited November 30, 2008 by coopercobra03

[crazysundog]

Intel Core2Duo E8500 @ 3.16Ghz

4Gb Kingston Ram @ 1033Mhz

Nvidia GTX260 core216 Superclocked edition

Vista Ultimate 64Bit

 

Frames, Time (ms), Min/Max/Avg

50774 | 900000 | 28 / 61 / 56.416

 

My normal average fps is closer to 40, when I'm running trackIR, and doing the flying myself...

[Haukka81]

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

69802, 899313, 19, 235, 77.617 :thumbup:

 

 

Intel core duo E8400 3.0 ghz

4G ddr800mhz

Ati radeon 4850 512m

Asus 24" tft 1920x1080

XP32 bit

 

No antialising, 4xAF

 

Runs well, imho.

 

But now its time to play. :joystick:

Edited December 1, 2008 by Haukka81

[kaos.dll]

maybe someone post here a graphic configuration file for the benchmarking.

 

best would be to use 1024x768 or 1280x1024 because this runs on every PC.

Graphic settings should be default (no AA, etc)

 

Then post the Results like:

 

CPU @ CPU-Core Speed

RAM

Graphic

OS

 

like

 

CPU: C2D E7200 @ 3.2 GHz

RAM: 4 GB PC3-1333

GRAPHIC: Radeon 1900 XTX 512MB

OS: Vista x64

 

This make it much easier to compair :-)

[ocram]

Well, I dont know how reliable the track is for benchmarking!

Because I ran this track two times now and each time I had completely different views. Especially at around min. 7 to 8. In the first run I had almost only close views to the aircrafts. But in the second run I had from min. 7 on almost only a wide view over the battlefield.

I assumed this is running like a video. But the battle is different each time and so are the views.

 

1. run:

Avg: 84.469

Min: 1

Max: 359

 

2. run:

Avg: 93.536

Min: 1

Max: 422

 

 

About the resources:

Throughout the tests the System memory filled only up two 1133 MB. The VRAM is really spare, filled only up to 357 MB, and that even with 4xTSAA and 16xAF. So theres is a lot of unused space for current graphic cards. CPU usage is only 100/10 on a C2D in Windows XP. So I think raw CPU power is best for DCS BS.

 

My System:

Windows XP SP2

C2D E8600 @ 4200 MHz

GTX 280

 

Graphic settings:

AF x 16

AA x 4

AA Transparency on

Resolution 1680 x 1050 x 32

 

 

Ingame Settings:

[Talon]

Bump:

I agree with Kaos.dll in that we should have a standardized configuration before running the benchmark track, so that the results can be compared as much as possible.

Default graphic settings is a good start, and probably the video resolution to 1024 x 768 for standard aspect displays, and the lowest for widescreen displays (1280x1024?) would be good too. Maybe set 0 AA and 0 AF and identify if done in XP or Vista 32 or 64. If in Vista, specify also if single core affinity or mutli core affinities are set for the DCS.exe (note: this is a manual function, not automatic just because you may have more than a single core cpu).

And also specify the amount of ram used.

[TX-EcoDragon]

My System:

Intel E8400

2x1GB Crucial Ballistix DDR21000

Abit AB9ProQuadGT P965

eVGA 8800GTS 512 (G92)

CPU is aircooled by TuniqTower120

BlackShark is installed on a 320gig 7200.10 Barracuda

Planar PX2611W 26" 1920*1200 monitor.

Windows XP Pro.

 

**************nVidia Driver level settings (unless otherwise specified for individual runs)*******************

Anisotropic Filtering: 8x

Antialiasing: 2x (Override any app setting)

AA Transparency: Supersampling

Conformant Texture Clamp: Use Hardware

Force mipmaps: Trilinear

Max Pre-Rendered frames: 3

Single Display Performance Mode

Texture Filtering Anisotropic sample optimization: On

Negative LOD vias: Clamp

Texture filtering quality: Quality

Tilinear Optimization: On

Threaded Optimization: Auto

Triple Buffering: On

Anisotropic mip filter Optimization: Off

vSynch: Forced on

*********************************************

In game settings:

Textures:HIGH

Scenes: HIGH

Civ Traffic: No

Water: Normal

Visible Range: Medium

Heat Blur: On

Shadows: All Planar

1920x1200, 16:10, 1 Camera

Res of Cockpit textures: 1024 (One benchmark tests 512mb)

Mirrors: ON

 

Battle.miz.trk

Start: When HMS initially activated

Stop: After 8 minutes 0 seconds

 

Battle.miz is a very large mission, with a lot going on. I flew the mission and recorded a track, I then ran FRAPS benchmarking utility during the same 8 minute portion of the replay at various settings as described below. Driver level settings, and in game settings were kept constant with only one exception for the 512 vs 1024mb cockpit texture comparison.

***************CPU Overclock scaling in Black Shark***************

It is clear that Black Shark is sensitive to CPU clock speeds. Over the range of speeds I tested, I observed a rather linear increase in both minimum as well as average frame rate as CPU clock speed increases. In this case, a 300 MHz increase in CPU speed gains approximately 2.8 average frames per second from 3GHz on up to 3.9.

 

Raw data:

E8400 @ 3.06 GHz (speedstep enabled) 2x1Gigs of PC8000 RAM at 850Mhz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 670 core 972 memory 1674 shaders.

Frames: 16232 - Time: 480193ms - Avg: 33.803 - Min: 5 - Max: 61

 

E8400 @ 3.303GHz 2x1Gigs of PC8000 RAM at 917.6MHz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 670 core 972 memory 1674 shaders.

Frames: 17450 - Time: 480253ms - Avg: 36.335 - Min: 6 - Max: 62

 

E8400 @ 3.6GHz 2x1Gigs of PC8000 RAM at 1,000MHz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 670 core 972 memory 1674 shaders.

Frames: 18977 - Time: 479752ms - Avg: 39.555 - Min: 8 - Max: 62

 

E8400 @ 3.906GHz 2x1Gigs of PC8000 RAM at 868MHz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 670 core 972 memory 1674 shaders.

Frames: 20212 - Time: 479121ms - Avg: 42.185 - Min: 10 - Max: 62

 

3.06 to 3.303 yields 2.532 avg fps increase,

3.303 to 3.6 yields 3.22 avg fps more,

3.6 to 3.9 yields 2.63 avg fps increase.

 

***************Video Card Overclocks***************

While this OC isn’t major, it’s clear that the fps did not change any appreciable amount. In fact this GPU OC only nets .231 average fps better!

 

Note that while I've got 8X Anisotropic Filtering running, I'm only using 2XAA - which is just fine at a higher resolution like 1920x1200. There really aren't any jaggies to speak of, and I think that getting rid of jaggies via resolution instead of adding blur of antialiasing looks better in sims (especially the cockpit). At higher AA settings perhaps the video card OC would show a little more of a change.

 

The minimum frame rate is 1 fps better – however it would take many runs to confirm that this since it only takes one dip to create this data, while the average should be quite accurate over 8 minute runs.

 

Raw data:

E8400 @ 3.6GHz 2x1Gigs of PC8000 RAM at 1,000MHz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 670 core 972 memory 1674 shaders.

Frames: 18977 - Time: 479752ms - Avg: 39.555 - Min: 8 - Max: 62

E8400 @ 3.6GHz 2x1Gigs of PC8000 RAM at 1,000MHz, 8800GTS (G92) Overclocked to 700 core 1000 memory 1748 shaders.

Frames: 19096 - Time: 479965ms - Avg: 39.786 - Min: 9 - Max: 62

***************Cockpit texture Resolution 1024 vs 512***************

Here we see that setting cockpit textures to 512mb instead of 1024 improves average fps by only 0.219 fps on this system!

Raw Data:

 

E8400 @ 3.6GHz 2x1Gigs of PC8000 RAM at 1,000MHz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks, “Resolution of Cockpit Textures” set to 512

Frames: 19079 - Time: 479674ms - Avg: 39.774 - Min: 8 - Max: 62

E8400 @ 3.6GHz 2x1Gigs of PC8000 RAM at 1,000MHz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks “Resolution of Cockpit Textures” set to 1024

Frames: 18977 - Time: 479752ms - Avg: 39.555 - Min: 8 - Max: 62

 

***************Two Cores vs One Core in Black Shark – Windows XP Pro 32***************

Allowing DCS to run on both cores instead of one resulted in an average increase of 1.07 fps

Raw Data:

E8400 @ 3.6GHz 2x1Gigs of PC8000 RAM at 1,000MHz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks, CPU core affinity for DCS.EXE set to core 0.

Frames: 18977 - Time: 479752ms - Avg: 39.555 - Min: 8 - Max: 62

 

E8400 @ 3.6GHz 2x1Gigs of PC8000 RAM at 1,000MHz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks, but core 0 and 1 set to DCS.EXE.

Frames: 19497 - Time: 479911ms - Avg: 40.626 - Min: 6 - Max: 62

 

***************Conclusion***************

So in summary we see that Black Shark, like most Flight Simulators, is highly dependant on CPU clock speeds, and any increase in CPU clocks will lead to a noticable frame rate increase. On the other hand, video card overclocks, had minimal impact on performance, and neither did changing between 512mb and 1024 mb cockpit texture settings. . .at least on my machine. On lower end machines the 1024 textures might be a more obvious decrease in performance. For users with Core2Duo machines or similar, these settings are hardly worth worrying about, and the same can be said for the video card OC as the difference in each case was approximately 2/10ths of a frame!!

We do see that it might be worth it to set the DCS.EXE to use both cores instead of one, even for Xp users. While there is a 2fps lower minimum frame rate, it’s clear that overall we have improved performance with both cores running – though only by a little over 1 frame per second.

 

S! TX-EcoDragon

www.txsquadron.com

Edited January 12, 2009 by TX-EcoDragon

[Haukka81]

Nice test!! wtg!

 

I have core duo e8400, looks like i have to make some OC :)

 

What is best cooler to e8400??

 

-esa