Latest Release 1109 Rain Effects AND MORE!

Discussion in 'News & Notifications' started by Christopher Elliott, Dec 21, 2017.

  1. Pauli Partanen

    Pauli Partanen Registered

    Joined:
    May 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,091
    Likes Received:
    1,748
    I think sometimes my 680 seem to have lower performance than my 7870 had in DX11. On other games 680 is faster and overall it should be faster.
    Havent really made test with rF2 and there is now different builds, so this is just me guessing. :)
     
  2. aguy0523

    aguy0523 Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    36
    You're making this out to be more complicated than it is. It's a $32 game on Steam, which is now on sale for $15, not a NASA space shuttle going to Mars. You have 7 year old hardware. You're PC is outdated, that's it. It's not DX11, it's not rF2, it's not S397. You have to keep everything on low, no vsync, no aa, low resolution, low post effects to run this game. Even still, you might have low fps.

    You're needlessly driving yourself crazy. Buy a new PC or accept what you have and how it runs.
     
    John, kro388th, bwana and 1 other person like this.
  3. stonec

    stonec Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    His problems are probably more related to PCI-E 2.0 lane than GPU. rF2 is the only game in this universe that bottlenecks PCI-E 2.0 x16 or PCI-E 3.0 x8, it's often the number one reason for the poor performance, especially with newer content. Another problem is running out of VRAM on 2/3 GB GPU's. rF2 doen't manage the VRAM as well as some other games and if you have anything running in the background like a web browser, rF2 will not claim the VRAM.
    What content is that with? With latest GT3 cars, animated wipers and windscreen, a track with latest puddle tech etc., it's a real challenge to achieve 60 FPS at start of race.
     
  4. juanchioooo

    juanchioooo Registered

    Joined:
    May 16, 2016
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    1,649
    you're wrong, I use quite old processor of 2009 fx 8350 and its motherboard is pcie expres 2.0
    it is more likely your graphics card and its bad configuration
     
  5. stonec

    stonec Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    Nope. Graph below shows that my GTX 1050 Ti is badly bottlenecked by PCI-E 2.0, a card that is nowhere as powerful as GTX 1060 for example. When underclocking my GPU by 300 MHz, I still achieve almost the same FPS at race start. It is very likely that even PCI-E 3.0 bottlenecks rF2 to some extent with a card like GTX 1080, which is why the bus bottleneck should be solved before new cards like Nvidia Volta get released.

    rF2 scaling.png
     
  6. juanchioooo

    juanchioooo Registered

    Joined:
    May 16, 2016
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    1,649
    the graphic that puts what you want, but the pcie 2.0 is not responsible for a 1050ti is too fair.
    more bottle neck will do the fx in my case
     
  7. Ari Antero

    Ari Antero Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,882
    Likes Received:
    829
  8. Ari Antero

    Ari Antero Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,882
    Likes Received:
    829
  9. dadaboomda

    dadaboomda Registered

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Messages:
    712
    Likes Received:
    202
    That is what I do : I turn to low a lot of settings.

    But I absolutely don't agree.

    The problem is not my hardware, which must work very fine at medium-high settings.

    All other "simulations" turn in 100% ultra (AC) or very high (PC2 demo) with a lot of AA on my "totally outdated hardware". And with better graphics.

    Yes, a better hardware is to plan.

    But you know what is the real problem, that you did not bother to evoke?

    The RF2 graphics engine is totally unoptimized. Totally.

    Graphic quality I like, no worries.

    But the quality / performance ratio is totally catastrophic.

    But how should we judge a graphics engine?

    On the quality / performance ratio precisely. The performance is always more important on a simulation than on the quality.

    But be careful, do not say this hard truth, for fear of offending the publisher of the game.
     
  10. juanchioooo

    juanchioooo Registered

    Joined:
    May 16, 2016
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    1,649
  11. juanchioooo

    juanchioooo Registered

    Joined:
    May 16, 2016
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    1,649
    there is no more blind than the one who does not want to see...
     
    AMillward likes this.
  12. Comante

    Comante Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,694
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    You have no hard truth, the truth is that under the worst circumstances possible (like a third party converted track, that is several hundred MBs), under the most demanding conditions (high poly cars, AIs, a brand new feature (rain), running on a brand new graphic engine (dx9 engine tweaked to run DX11) .. struggle... is this really so upsetting? Not so much. I will try myself to see how many fps I can squeeze in the same circumstances.
     
  13. stonec

    stonec Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    Did you check the chart I showed? If so, explain to me why my game runs at almost same FPS when I downclock my GPU by 300 MHz. Clearly it's not the 1050 Ti that is the issue...
     
  14. juanchioooo

    juanchioooo Registered

    Joined:
    May 16, 2016
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    1,649
    check your my links, but there are many more that show the opposite, I do not say it's the same 2.0 as 3.0, what I'm saying is that the graphic card is more relevant ... if you do not want to see it perfect, it's your opinion, not mine , regards
     
  15. dadaboomda

    dadaboomda Registered

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Messages:
    712
    Likes Received:
    202
    What @stonec explained to me several times is that the PCIe X16 2.0 SPECIFICALLY on RF2 is very penalizing.

    He had explained to me some time ago that in some specific game situations I could expect up to 40% more FPS. I think he's right.

    Reason for RF2 and its specific graphics engine.

    For "classic" video games, that is to say with a good optimized graphics engine, you're probably right (I guess).
     
  16. F1Aussie

    F1Aussie Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    271
    Well I have a gtx 1080ti and rf2 has the worst fps of any sim and shooter that I play. I would have thought it is logical that non 10 series would struggle as they have less grunt. But regardless it is not a bed of roses for strong gpu in rf2 either.
     
  17. patchedupdemon

    patchedupdemon Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    1,151
  18. Will Mazeo

    Will Mazeo Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    1,578
    dadaboomda likes this.
  19. Ari Antero

    Ari Antero Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,882
    Likes Received:
    829
    My test shows clear that PCI-E 3.0 has 35% better performance then PCI-E 2.0 which simply means that if GTX 1060 is running PCI-E 2.0 and GTX 1050Ti is running PCI-E 3.0 the performance is egual in rFactor 2. :oops:
     
  20. Ari Antero

    Ari Antero Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,882
    Likes Received:
    829
    There might be slight difference like 2- 4 %. Perhaps I make a new test also with PCI-E 3.0 x8.0 when we get few more DX11 upgrades.
    ;)
     

Share This Page