Benchmark mode?

[TLTay]

Hi everybody. I got to thinking about all of the different kinds of hardware that people play KSP on, from god-tier to potato-mode, and though it would be really super convenient if we could quantify the differences in performance and hardware. I know a number of games include a benchmark built in, and if KSP2 had one, it could help tell what impact x mod has on performance, or y ram speed has. Maybe even a part-count vs frame rate chart or something? That would be pretty awesome. 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

Built in benchmarks rarely reflect even the least demanding scenes in the game, especially after DLC and updates.

So nah, you'll have plenty of benchmarks of the actual game to look at and judge if your machine is capable when KSP2 comes out.

[TLTay]

16 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Built in benchmarks rarely reflect even the least demanding scenes in the game, especially after DLC and updates.

So nah, you'll have plenty of benchmarks of the actual game to look at and judge if your machine is capable when KSP2 comes out.

I'm not worried if my machine is capable. It is. I'm more worried about quantifying performance differences with a fixed point of reference. There's always a bunch of threads/posts about performance and frame rate under this or that circumstance, and it might benefit the community to be able to compare their findings and where they stand. It would be nice to know where a certain CPU stands in comparison to your own on KSP-specific tasks before F5ing for weeks and spending a thousand dollars for a 2% gain in performance...

[Meecrob]

1 hour ago, TLTay said:

I'm not worried if my machine is capable. It is.

Sounds like you just want an official way to say "my number is bigger than yours"

I wonder what the point of a benchmark function built in is if the game is being developed for mods from the get-go. You can only compare your numbers if you have the exact same set of mods, which is a fool's errand at best.

Edited March 29, 2021 by Meecrob

[TLTay]

1 hour ago, Meecrob said:

Sounds like you just want an official way to say "my number is bigger than yours"

Nope. Don't care. Just planning to upgrade and want to see what kind of a physics boost X processor would have over my current setup.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 hours ago, TLTay said:

I'm not worried if my machine is capable. It is. I'm more worried about quantifying performance differences with a fixed point of reference. There's always a bunch of threads/posts about performance and frame rate under this or that circumstance, and it might benefit the community to be able to compare their findings and where they stand. It would be nice to know where a certain CPU stands in comparison to your own on KSP-specific tasks before F5ing for weeks and spending a thousand dollars for a 2% gain in performance...

You can do the same thing by just setting a controlled environment to conduct your tests in, so basically pick whatever section of KSP2 ends up being most demanding and standardize a run through it.  This is what most good reviewers and review sites (Should) be doing with any game.

Also KSP2 is coming out in 2022, so it's unlikely that CPU's especially will be OOS....actually what CPU are you thinking of that's even close to a grand?!?

1 hour ago, Meecrob said:

Sounds like you just want an official way to say "my number is bigger than yours"

I wonder what the point of a benchmark function built in is if the game is being developed for mods from the get-go. You can only compare your numbers if you have the exact same set of mods, which is a fool's errand at best.

Nah; he has a legitimate request.  It's just a in-game canned benchmark is still not the way to go about it.

Just now, TLTay said:

Nope. Don't care. Just planning to upgrade and want to see what kind of a physics boost X processor would have over my current setup.

If you want a canned benchmark to see this....look at physics scores in Time Spy or FireStrike ultimate for the processor you're thinking about. That'll give you the BEST CASE performance gains, and then realize that whatever you'll see will be decreased from there. Make note of the RAM Speed paired with them as well, both Intel and AMD Ryzen benefit from RAM => 3200mhz with decent timings.

[TLTay]

14 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Also KSP2 is coming out in 2022, so it's unlikely that CPU's especially will be OOS....actually what CPU are you thinking of that's even close to a grand?!?

Have an eye on the upcoming 12th gen intel processors with high OC and OC'd DDR5. With the way things are going parts-wise recently, it would need to be a decent boost to justify what will likely be an eyewatering price.

 

18 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Nah; he has a legitimate request.  It's just a in-game canned benchmark is still not the way to go about it.

I'm not sure most "gaming" benchmarks would be ideal for the single-core heavy physics-based KSP, that's why maybe one built in?

Also, it would end up on Utoobe in benchmark videos that would add free publicity for the game! Dear devs, please notice and consider this.

[Meecrob]

I just find it hilarious. We don't even know minimum specs yet, but you guys are like "Dammit, give us advice in-game on how to spend 2 grand on a new processor and RAM"

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 hours ago, TLTay said:

Have an eye on the upcoming 12th gen intel processors with high OC and OC'd DDR5. With the way things are going parts-wise recently, it would need to be a decent boost to justify what will likely be an eyewatering price.

 

I'm not sure most "gaming" benchmarks would be ideal for the single-core heavy physics-based KSP, that's why maybe one built in?

Also, it would end up on Utoobe in benchmark videos that would add free publicity for the game! Dear devs, please notice and consider this.

High frame rate and low resolution stress CPU, so looking at benchmarks of games tested at 1080p and with the processors in question will be fine.

Also most games batter a single thread, multithreaded games are the exception not the rule.

Also I seriously doubt DDR5 is going to be available at anything resembling a reasonable price for consumers in 2022. 

When DDR4 was first released a 16gb kit was well over 330 USD and it was 2133 with crap timings. 

But you do you, my recommendation would be to plan around hardware you know exists now. 

[paul_c]

11 hours ago, TLTay said:

Have an eye on the upcoming 12th gen intel processors with high OC and OC'd DDR5. With the way things are going parts-wise recently, it would need to be a decent boost to justify what will likely be an eyewatering price.

 

I've not even seen any proposed performance/specs for Intel 12th gen.

Their 11th gen is only just launching now and Intel have been famous for obfuscating their CPU performance, by selectively choosing which benchmark to show the results for; or declaring that "benchmarks are no longer representative". So the best way is an independent review.......here's some summaries from those:

Waste of Sand: Intel Core i7-11700K CPU Review & Benchmarks
Intel's Core i-11700K Just Sucks!
The i7-11700K is...Disappointing...
Intel's 11th Gen CPUs Are A BIG Disappointment and You Probably Shouldn't Buy One
Intel's "New" i9-11900K Details....Don't get too excited

I appreciate this is for 11th gen not 12th gen. What massive change does 12th gen bring?

[TLTay]

13 hours ago, paul_c said:

I appreciate this is for 11th gen not 12th gen. What massive change does 12th gen bring?

Supposed to be a new architecture. I'm hopeful for an actual increase in OC'd single-thread performance vs my 8700k. Current offerings leave no reason to spend the money to upgrade, as the reviews are correct. 

[paul_c]

Just seen a 11900K review....didn't go too well for it:

 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

7 hours ago, paul_c said:

Just seen a 11900K review....didn't go too well for it:

 

Oh how the mighty have fallen....

I remember not too long ago a time where Intel was unbeatable, AMD teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. And Faildozer a massive embarrassment, and now Intel seems to be in the same shoe.

As delicious as seeing this is, i do hope Intel eventually gets their house in order. These are For-Profit Companies,  not our friends. So the only way to prevent AMD from being Intel 2.0 is for them to fight, brutally and constantly for our money.

[paul_c]

Ironically, it won't have much of a difference anyway because AMD can't physically increase their production that much - these things are apparently very complicated to make and its not just a case of making more of them. And Intel does a lot of trade with the system integrators and big companies like Lenovo, Dell, HP etc already, who want a consistent supply of CPUs. So its market share is quite steady.

Even then, the 'ultimate performance' of a CPU only really shows an effect in limited areas of the market - gaming and content generation/editing. The vast majority of home/office PCs are absolutely fine with a low performance CPU. For example I have a 3600X (3rd generation Ryzen (Zen2), 7nm) and 2060 graphics card; while I built a PC for my Dad with 3200G (2nd generation Ryzen (Zen+), 12nm, integrated graphics) and there is no real-world difference for internet browsing or MS Office use. But fire up a demanding game and the difference reveals itself. Also with AMD not offering a budget CPU model in their latest generation, or anything with integrated graphics, there is a wide gap in the market there, which Intel will no doubt fill. The tables have turned - AMD is now the expensive, high-performance CPU while Intel is better for budget/low end - but that's not such a disasterous thing anyway. 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

29 minutes ago, paul_c said:

Ironically, it won't have much of a difference anyway because AMD can't physically increase their production that much - these things are apparently very complicated to make and its not just a case of making more of them. And Intel does a lot of trade with the system integrators and big companies like Lenovo, Dell, HP etc already, who want a consistent supply of CPUs. So its market share is quite steady.

Even then, the 'ultimate performance' of a CPU only really shows an effect in limited areas of the market - gaming and content generation/editing. The vast majority of home/office PCs are absolutely fine with a low performance CPU. For example I have a 3600X (3rd generation Ryzen (Zen2), 7nm) and 2060 graphics card; while I built a PC for my Dad with 3200G (2nd generation Ryzen (Zen+), 12nm, integrated graphics) and there is no real-world difference for internet browsing or MS Office use. But fire up a demanding game and the difference reveals itself. Also with AMD not offering a budget CPU model in their latest generation, or anything with integrated graphics, there is a wide gap in the market there, which Intel will no doubt fill. The tables have turned - AMD is now the expensive, high-performance CPU while Intel is better for budget/low end - but that's not such a disasterous thing anyway. 

It's mostly because of wafer supply, which is booked 2+ years in advance.

But yeah, I'm running a Ryzen 1700 with 2X Vega 56 and perfectly content. It handles everything i can throw at it from compile jobs to rendering, and even gaming. I could get ~30% more performance with a 3700 or similar, but then i'm still waiting for a decent GPU. And all the latest just reek of stopgaps, even the 3000 series still has terrible RTX performance and not that much better raster D:

[paul_c]

The NVidia 3070 and 3080 are a decent upgrade on previous models, if you could actually buy them at anywhere near MSP - but since you can't, its somewhat irrelevant. The 3060 seems not to have done so well in reviews and is only a bit better than a 2060. So at its MSP price point, its a bit marginal.

I built a PC back in September and I had planned to buy a "stopgap" secondhand graphics card to tide me over, then go for the 3060 or 3070 around the start of the year - but with the way the market's gone, I'm sticking with my 2060 for the meantime. In reality, I made a bit of a booboo and bought what I thought was a decent monitor, but its max refresh is 75Hz, so I don't need to worry about frame rates above 75! I could have probably been okay with a 1660 or 1650. But I could always buy a better monitor later.

[pmborg]

On 3/29/2021 at 6:15 PM, TLTay said:

Hi everybody. I got to thinking about all of the different kinds of hardware that people play KSP on, from god-tier to potato-mode, and though it would be really super convenient if we could quantify the differences in performance and hardware. I know a number of games include a benchmark built in, and if KSP2 had one, it could help tell what impact x mod has on performance, or y ram speed has. Maybe even a part-count vs frame rate chart or something? That would be pretty awesome. 

Hello @TLTay

There is a good way to benchmark and share the results using the: https://www.userbenchmark.com/

• This is my current benchmark with a system 3 years old and with a graphic card upgrade last year: https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/30764243

In resume for gaming this is the value that counts:

With this system relatively old you can get this:

If you are interested you can also share your userbenchmark

Cheers!