Here are the list of what I have experienced : I notice sometimes when I keep changing cars I get weird not stutter..... but like timelapse...LOL Even my wheel get timelapse like input...meaning it looses connection for fraction of a second Solution : restart PC. When testing 2-way SLI and then back to single GPU, for some reason , fast changing scene ( fast corners) dont look smooth even at 120fps. What happen was : 01. My then 1 GPU recognized my 3 monitors as 1 single 7680 x 1440. Not tripple being in surround mode. My Nvidia control panel for some reason then is missing the Surround Menu....LOL. Solution : Unplug all monitors Display Port cables, then connect only #1 monitor. Then slowly connect 2nd monitor and 3rd monitor with that unique chime sound when a new monitor get connected. Then the Nvidia surround menu will appear, recognize 3 separate monitors and then I program the 7680x1440 surround again. Restart PC. All will be smooth then. For those on higher than 1080p, use Display Port 1.4 cable and not HDMI if possible, even if your HDMI is 2.0 ( 18 Gb/s) . GTX1080Ti is Display Port 1.4 spec ( 32 Gb/s ) . Those with G-Sync monitors, I read must use Display Port : https://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/g-sync/faq#q7 On triple screen multiview angled, 120FPS is very nice, I have to admit. I would rather choose 120 FPS smoothness in fast corners than Post Effect any day. This is visual pleasure wise, not discussing other benefit of 120 fps giving faster visual real time data on fast corners.
I just checked and GPUz says mobo is x16 v3.0 but is currently running at v1.1 . Help ! why ?? Edit : it seems its a setting that adjusts on the fly as needed because i just hit the ? in GPUz and it turned to v3.0 . Had me worried for a minute .
Well I dropped the PP from ultra to medium and it made no difference in fps for me, still drops in fps at the start and in replays. In one case I had low fps on an updated mod track on the first few laps when field was bunched up, 24 cars all visible. I noted that green bar stayed at full but gpu load never went above 50% and purple bar stayed at 50% even during race start. Not sure what is going on here.
I must admit I only stick to the more optimised tracks that fully untilise "Low track detail" setting The rest I delete instantly after 1st try if performance is not good It limits my choice but I can't stand bad performance -most 3rd party tracks are useless
PCIe 1.1 could explain why you get 50% GPU load only in game, so it's a problem if it's really in 1.1 mode. Even 2.0 is not enough in rF2 if GPU is more powerful than a GTX 970. Quick googling indicated it could be a bug when Windows 7 is set to run in power saving mode.
I am on win 10. I render test in gpu-z and it changed the 1.1 to 3.0 while the test was running then when I stopped the test it went back to 1.1 Not sure if that means anything or not.
I have an i7-7700k overclocked to 4.7GHz, and my card is slightly overclocked (ASUS STRIX OC model), but I must admit that my RAM memory is unusually fast, I have 16G of 4133MHZ ram (overkill for gaming, but I have other hobbies that require this speed). CPU and RAM performance are very important to feed properly a card as powerful as the 1080ti, although that is less important the higher the resolution and detail you go, because then you get into GPU limited territory. But if you lower detail or resolution then the GPU basically is just waiting for the CPU to deliver the info needed to render the next frame, in that case you are CPU bound. And if the amount of information needed is big, as in, bigger than the CPU cache memory, then the RAM speed becomes important too, the bigger the data the more important the RAM speed. If I have time later today or this weekend I can limit my ram and CPU speed and test again to see how big of a difference it makes. Another reason could be that your card is getting too hot and its automatically throttled or down clocked, my card has a very good cooler and I increased the fan profile to prevent this. You can check this with GPU-z I think. How different is my performance to yours? How many FPS you get in the scenario I posted (Monaco with a full Cobra field from the back at race start).
But that's what doesn't show for rF2. Here the difference is quiet high. For all: If the settings says @ 16x 1.1 that's ok. If you go into rF2 it will the go up to 3.0
You have repeated the same argument for several posts. As a third party track modder let me tell you that it is not very nice to read your continuous whining about it. If you are so worried about perfomance you should learn yourself to adjust low detail settings. It is not that hard.... However other people prefer to drop other graphic settings like resolution in order to maintain playable fps. Why should they care about your problems?
thanks for the reply, I don't believe it is temp related, it sits in the 50's and 60's mainly. I will do your test tonight and get to you. I can run doom at maximum in vulkan any get up around 200fps most of the time. I did notice last night that my maximum pre rendered frames was at default and not 1, hopefully that will make some difference.
I have a i5 6600k @4.2 and 16GB ram @2133 and after dropping PP to medium it's golden in all S397 updated content from start and in replay now. PCI E is v3. 0 in rF2 but v1. 1 in idle. The green bar is full all the time and purple is about 1/4 to 1/3 but MSI AB shows from 99% at race start and most of the time in replay down to about 50% when solo on track.
Well, I went to test the reduced RAM and CPU speed and turns out I'm an idiot, I noticed I had been doing my tests with PP lowered, I think they were set to none but cant be sure, so take those results with a grain of salt. In the case of the Cobra at Monaco my system renders around 66FPS, instead of the 77 I claimed initially, apologies about that. I edited my posts to clarify this. Regardless I went ahead and tested again in Monaco with the Cobra, start of the race at the back of a field of 24 cars, and this are the (actual) results with PP set to ultra and everything else maxed out: CPU: 4.7GHZ RAM: 4133MHZ resolution: 1440p FPS: 65.7 CPU: 4.7GHZ RAM: 2133MHZ resolution: 1440p FPS: 63.9 CPU: 3.5GHZ RAM: 2133MHZ resolution: 1440p FPS: 64.0 As you can see it looks like that at least for my system, on 1440p, CPU and RAM are not so important after all, faster ram seems to add a whopping 2FPS to the total. Testing for 1080p I got this: CPU: 4.7GHZ RAM: 4133MHZ resolution: 1080p FPS: 77.2 CPU: 4.7GHZ RAM: 2133MHZ resolution: 1080p FPS: 74.2 CPU: 3.5GHZ RAM: 2133MHZ resolution: 1080p FPS: 74.6 I think since this is pretty much a worst case scenario (complex track with lots of complex cars visible, with full PP and everything maxed out), performance is still mostly GPU limited, so CPU and RAM wont make much of a difference, provided they are relatively fast, but you don't need the fastest. I think CPU and RAM will have a bigger impact with lower detail settings in a less complex track, but I wont test that since the point of this thread is the performance of the 1080ti on ultra settings, and even in the worst case, you can still get more than 60fps with it, even with a slow CPU and RAM.
Thats good to know abiut the ram. I have a mix match ram, 2 x 2666 and 2 x 2133 so they stick to the lower. I think 4k will show even less difference with lower ram.
I just turned v-sync of to test Monaco and Cobra and my PC started making this weird noise, sitting there spinning out and realised it was doing 3258 fps in the start menu, lol, need to cap that shit. Anyway, sitting on the line it was @57fps, race start went upto 68 then back to 55, by the first corner it was in the 80's and then seemes to go from 70 - 110 fps depending on where i was on track but never went below 70 for the whole lap with 22 cars visible and PP medium. I still cant enjoy the game without v-sync though, not a smooth experience at all? Not sure why? And that 55 - 57 only lasted a second so in my mind is acceptable. Replays on the other hand are completely acceptable with v-sync off even though 1966 Monaco dropped to the low 30's off the line and stayed between 45-120 region depending on how many cars where in view. All @4k max settings/ AA x5 / PP medium.
Hey @Paulfield, yeah i know, i don't think being not smooth without v-sync will ever improve as any game is the same for me even at ludicrous fps, lol. But hopefully optimisation will come for all I just put some wheels on the stand i bought from you. It's great, thanks.
In 2,5 months I haven't seen any fps improvement in my side (still lower than dx9) and the frequency of new builds has decreased considerably. You grant things for sure with no clear evidence on what to base your statements.
I have tested how much ram has to say in rF2 with 1080Ti and hardware from 2013. MBO: ASRock Z87 OC Formula, CPU: i7-4770k, GPU: GTX 1080 Ti SEA HAWK EK X Resolution: 5760x1080@ 120hz. rFactor 2 > DDR3@2666 vs DDR3@1333 .> DDR3@2666 has average increase 13% I have also tested my older PC from 2013: MBO: ASRock Z87 OC Formula CPU: i7-4770k RAM: 32 GB Avexir Bliz @2666 CL 11 GPU: GTX 1080 Ti SEA HAWK EK X Resolution: 5760x1080@ 120hz. VS my new game rig: MBO: Asus X99 WS-E/10G CPU: i7-5960X@4.4Ghz RAM: 64 GB Ripjaws 4@3000 CL15 GPU: MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti SEA HAWK EK X Resolution: 5760x1080@ 120hz. In rFactor 2 there about 2 % fps increase which is similar increase compared to most of the other games but ofcourse in games like BF4 which are quad core supported fps increase is bigger. 3DMark Time Spy my new PC has score 11609, old one 9846.
