if anyone interested im putting together my new build tomorrow....
3 / 5
New 8700K build for me also in a few weeks. All parts are on the way. Just saying this. I don't have your games to do same tests but was interested to read OP OC results.
New 8700K build for me also in a few weeks. All parts are on the way. Just saying this. I don't have your games to do same tests but was interested to read OP OC results.
[quote="bo3b"][quote="RAGEdemon"][color="green"][b]4. 3D Vision FPS scales perfectly with Core overclock:[/b][/color]
Actual:
4.7GHz 7700K = ~70fps
Predicted:
5GHz 7700K fps = 5/4.7*70=[u][b]74FPS[/b][/u]
Actual:
5GHz 7700K = [u][b]74fps[/b][/u][/quote]I don't think you can do the math this way. The nature of bottlenecks is that small changes can have outsized influences on the result. It's interesting that's it linear, but I would not expect it to be.
In fact, this strongly suggests that CPU is not in fact the bottleneck in this scenario, because linear scaling of a test is not expected. Expectation is that this unlocks other components to move bottleneck to a new point. But maybe, especially if we didn't move out of the bottleneck range to other components.
I'd also be interested if you guys can check these results with RAM speed. There has been some suggestion that the faster RAM can make a big difference.[/quote]
I'm not sure that's true mate.
If we think the bottleneck is x
We increase the size of x by y%
Result: we see a performance increase by y%,
Then we can absolutely say that the bottleneck is x.
i.e.
If we have a bottle, with the inside neck of the bottle diameter 10mm.
We increase the diameter area of the neck by 10%
We observe that the flow of water through the neck has also increased by 10%,
Then, we can absolutely conclude that the bottle neck was the "bottleneck", because increasing the diameter of the bottle neck by y% also increased the output by y%.
If, however, the flow had not increased, only then can we conclude that the bottleneck lies someplace else.
[color="green"][b][u]Memory speed, especially for you :)[/u][/b][/color]
(I uninstalled GTA5 due to it being a space hog, but still have TW3 installed).
Witcher 3 @ 7700K 5GHz, 4.7GHz Cache/Uncore. AVX Offset 0. MCE ON.
Ultra preset
Resolution:720p
VSync OFF
All Hairworks OFF.
Novigrad Square signpost, look to the right, up the road.
[color="green"]DDR4 3600MHz 15-15-15-35 Memory[/color]
3D Vision OFF (In NV Control Panel):
FPS 150
3D Vision ON:
FPS 73
3D Vision Drop in performance = (150-73)/150 = [color="green"][b]51%[/b][/color]
[color="green"]DDR4 1600MHz 15-15-15-35 Memory[/color]
3D Vision OFF (In NV Control Panel):
FPS 83
3D Vision ON:
FPS 58
3D Vision Drop in performance = (83-58)/83 = [color="green"][b]30%[/b][/color]
[color="green"][b]Conclusion:[/b][/color]
We are severely bottlenecking the 5GHz 7700K by severely limiting memory bandwidth to 1600MHz when the minimum intel recommends for even 4.2GHz is 2133MHz.
By doing this, we see that the 3D vision CPU bottleneck has been removed, now only causing a 30% drop in performance, compared to the 51% drop in performance when there was no memory bandwidth limit.
Conclusion - further evidence that the bottleneck does not lie in the memory, but the cores of the CPU.
I don't think you can do the math this way. The nature of bottlenecks is that small changes can have outsized influences on the result. It's interesting that's it linear, but I would not expect it to be.
In fact, this strongly suggests that CPU is not in fact the bottleneck in this scenario, because linear scaling of a test is not expected. Expectation is that this unlocks other components to move bottleneck to a new point. But maybe, especially if we didn't move out of the bottleneck range to other components.
I'd also be interested if you guys can check these results with RAM speed. There has been some suggestion that the faster RAM can make a big difference.
I'm not sure that's true mate.
If we think the bottleneck is x
We increase the size of x by y%
Result: we see a performance increase by y%,
Then we can absolutely say that the bottleneck is x.
i.e.
If we have a bottle, with the inside neck of the bottle diameter 10mm.
We increase the diameter area of the neck by 10%
We observe that the flow of water through the neck has also increased by 10%,
Then, we can absolutely conclude that the bottle neck was the "bottleneck", because increasing the diameter of the bottle neck by y% also increased the output by y%.
If, however, the flow had not increased, only then can we conclude that the bottleneck lies someplace else.
Memory speed, especially for you :)
(I uninstalled GTA5 due to it being a space hog, but still have TW3 installed).
Witcher 3 @ 7700K 5GHz, 4.7GHz Cache/Uncore. AVX Offset 0. MCE ON.
Ultra preset
Resolution:720p
VSync OFF
All Hairworks OFF.
Novigrad Square signpost, look to the right, up the road.
DDR4 3600MHz 15-15-15-35 Memory
3D Vision OFF (In NV Control Panel):
FPS 150
3D Vision ON:
FPS 73
3D Vision Drop in performance = (150-73)/150 = 51%
DDR4 1600MHz 15-15-15-35 Memory
3D Vision OFF (In NV Control Panel):
FPS 83
3D Vision ON:
FPS 58
3D Vision Drop in performance = (83-58)/83 = 30%
Conclusion:
We are severely bottlenecking the 5GHz 7700K by severely limiting memory bandwidth to 1600MHz when the minimum intel recommends for even 4.2GHz is 2133MHz.
By doing this, we see that the 3D vision CPU bottleneck has been removed, now only causing a 30% drop in performance, compared to the 51% drop in performance when there was no memory bandwidth limit.
Conclusion - further evidence that the bottleneck does not lie in the memory, but the cores of the CPU.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
[quote]I'm not sure that's true mate.
If we think the bottleneck is x
We increase the size of x by y%
Result: we see a performance increase by y%,
Then we can absolutely say that the bottleneck is x.
i.e.
If we have a bottle, with the inside neck of the bottle diameter 10mm.
We increase the diameter area of the neck by 10%
We observe that the flow of water through the neck has also increased by 10%,
Then, we can absolutely conclude that the bottle neck was the "bottleneck", because increasing the diameter of the bottle neck by y% also increased the output by y%.
If, however, the flow had not increased, only then can we conclude that the bottleneck lies someplace else.[/quote]
That would only be true for a scenario where the value we are measuring is CPU based. In this case, we are looking at frame rate, which is the entire pipeline, not just CPU use. It makes no sense to expect linear scaling when the components are so wildly disparate.
Case in point- the so called DrawCalls bottleneck. The GPU has plenty of reserve capacity but is starved of data to process by the CPU. If you bump the CPU up by 10%, you bump up the number of DrawCalls by 10%, which can unlock waaay more than 10% fps. Because DrawCalls is a subset of the entire process, and not all of these pieces have linear effects.
Cool results on memory usage. One other takeaway is that RAM speed has a surprisingly large impact nowadays. It wasn't that long ago that it was ignored as a performance variable.
Probably more to the point, the real goal is to get a balanced system, without any given component being a mismatch.
If we think the bottleneck is x
We increase the size of x by y%
Result: we see a performance increase by y%,
Then we can absolutely say that the bottleneck is x.
i.e.
If we have a bottle, with the inside neck of the bottle diameter 10mm.
We increase the diameter area of the neck by 10%
We observe that the flow of water through the neck has also increased by 10%,
Then, we can absolutely conclude that the bottle neck was the "bottleneck", because increasing the diameter of the bottle neck by y% also increased the output by y%.
If, however, the flow had not increased, only then can we conclude that the bottleneck lies someplace else.
That would only be true for a scenario where the value we are measuring is CPU based. In this case, we are looking at frame rate, which is the entire pipeline, not just CPU use. It makes no sense to expect linear scaling when the components are so wildly disparate.
Case in point- the so called DrawCalls bottleneck. The GPU has plenty of reserve capacity but is starved of data to process by the CPU. If you bump the CPU up by 10%, you bump up the number of DrawCalls by 10%, which can unlock waaay more than 10% fps. Because DrawCalls is a subset of the entire process, and not all of these pieces have linear effects.
Cool results on memory usage. One other takeaway is that RAM speed has a surprisingly large impact nowadays. It wasn't that long ago that it was ignored as a performance variable.
Probably more to the point, the real goal is to get a balanced system, without any given component being a mismatch.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Indeed that's true mate, it all depends on how much of the overall process is affecting the FPS and how much is overhead. However, what I'd like to reiterate is that if the FPS is increasing at a similar or substantial percentage as the CPU clock, then it is also a CPU bottleneck, and cannot be discounted as such :)
Re: Memory,
If we assume that the memory becomes the only bottleneck once downclocked, then we can reach an interesting conclusion:
83fps = 1600MHz
150fps = x
x = 150/83 * 1600 = 2892MHz
This means that basically, anything faster than 3000MHz won't get you faster performance, which in fact a lot of benchmarks have shown, even on a 5GHz 7700K.
Regarding your point about memory bandwidth not being a factor in the past - I personally believe that it was always a factor - the benchmarkers never knew what they were doing back in the day, just as most modern benchmarkers run their CPU benchmarks at 4k - the GPU was always the bottleneck.
I bet if we go back to the times when benchmarkers showed no difference, and we benchmarked heavily CPU limited games at low resolutions, we would see the same effect from memory on performance as we see today.
I facepalm when I see people remark something along the lines of "Oh, I'll buy this crappy CPU because at 4k there was no difference between this and an 8700K @ 5.2GHz".
Indeed that's true mate, it all depends on how much of the overall process is affecting the FPS and how much is overhead. However, what I'd like to reiterate is that if the FPS is increasing at a similar or substantial percentage as the CPU clock, then it is also a CPU bottleneck, and cannot be discounted as such :)
Re: Memory,
If we assume that the memory becomes the only bottleneck once downclocked, then we can reach an interesting conclusion:
83fps = 1600MHz
150fps = x
x = 150/83 * 1600 = 2892MHz
This means that basically, anything faster than 3000MHz won't get you faster performance, which in fact a lot of benchmarks have shown, even on a 5GHz 7700K.
Regarding your point about memory bandwidth not being a factor in the past - I personally believe that it was always a factor - the benchmarkers never knew what they were doing back in the day, just as most modern benchmarkers run their CPU benchmarks at 4k - the GPU was always the bottleneck.
I bet if we go back to the times when benchmarkers showed no difference, and we benchmarked heavily CPU limited games at low resolutions, we would see the same effect from memory on performance as we see today.
I facepalm when I see people remark something along the lines of "Oh, I'll buy this crappy CPU because at 4k there was no difference between this and an 8700K @ 5.2GHz".
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
[quote="RAGEdemon"]
83fps = 1600MHz
150fps = x
x = 150/83 * 1600 = 2892MHz
This means that basically, anything faster than 3000MHz won't get you faster performance, which in fact a lot of benchmarks have shown, even on a 5GHz 7700K.
[/quote]
I played around with mem with gtaV...i felt like when running 4000Mhz the overal performance felt more consistent and smooth i made some FPS benchmarks with fraps and to verify my "feeling" the 4000Mhz performs better than the 3600Mhz, or atleast it does not dip that down ...wouldn´t you say ?
I played the second mission we used to meaasure the fps earlier. just played it through driving behind and trying to avoid obstacles and driving about the same (impossible by the way :D ).
chart is 4.7Ghz 8700k MCE on memory@3600 vs 4000Mhz
[IMG]http://i66.tinypic.com/qyalxu.png[/IMG]
maby someone else could make the same experiment and Validate or question this result
This means that basically, anything faster than 3000MHz won't get you faster performance, which in fact a lot of benchmarks have shown, even on a 5GHz 7700K.
I played around with mem with gtaV...i felt like when running 4000Mhz the overal performance felt more consistent and smooth i made some FPS benchmarks with fraps and to verify my "feeling" the 4000Mhz performs better than the 3600Mhz, or atleast it does not dip that down ...wouldn´t you say ?
I played the second mission we used to meaasure the fps earlier. just played it through driving behind and trying to avoid obstacles and driving about the same (impossible by the way :D ).
chart is 4.7Ghz 8700k MCE on memory@3600 vs 4000Mhz
maby someone else could make the same experiment and Validate or question this result
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
if anyone is interested on the numbers, here is the xls.
https://mega.nz/#!JIN2hS7L!_BoOBLRs6xROBFB3nK5-DCz0oORJfsd4yjPrrMaGU-s
the time it took to start driving is different everytime as you can see from the charts
the time it took to start driving is different everytime as you can see from the charts
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
does anyone remember this...
http://i65.tinypic.com/282nt3t.jpg
it has been taken with afterburner so i don´t know it it´s comparable to fraps but i got 35 fps with my old system from the bench now 48
[IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/168a3h3.png[/IMG]
it has been taken with afterburner so i don´t know it it´s comparable to fraps but i got 35 fps with my old system from the bench now 48
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
Just noticed the exel made the chart cutting measurepoints. If
Someone can make better please do from the xls is uploaded.
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
[quote="Metal-O-Holic"][quote="RAGEdemon"]
83fps = 1600MHz
150fps = x
x = 150/83 * 1600 = 2892MHz
This means that basically, anything faster than 3000MHz won't get you faster performance, which in fact a lot of benchmarks have shown, even on a 5GHz 7700K.[/quote]I played around with mem with gtaV...i felt like when running 4000Mhz the overal performance felt more consistent and smooth i made some FPS benchmarks with fraps and to verify my "feeling" the 4000Mhz performs better than the 3600Mhz, or atleast it does not dip that down ...wouldn´t you say ?
I played the second mission we used to meaasure the fps earlier. just played it through driving behind and trying to avoid obstacles and driving about the same (impossible by the way :D ).
chart is 4.7Ghz 8700k MCE on memory@3600 vs 4000Mhz
...
maby someone else could make the same experiment and Validate or question this result[/quote]
An easier way to determine this in GTA is to run their built in benchmark, and then look at their benchmark file and find the 99% percentile number.
The reason this is good is it's a [i]minimum [/i]frame rate for the game/benchmark, but culls the outliers like when loading. Plus easy to run, very good for comparisons. Uses [i]minimum [/i]frame rate, which is always, always more interesting than average.
This means that basically, anything faster than 3000MHz won't get you faster performance, which in fact a lot of benchmarks have shown, even on a 5GHz 7700K.
I played around with mem with gtaV...i felt like when running 4000Mhz the overal performance felt more consistent and smooth i made some FPS benchmarks with fraps and to verify my "feeling" the 4000Mhz performs better than the 3600Mhz, or atleast it does not dip that down ...wouldn´t you say ?
I played the second mission we used to meaasure the fps earlier. just played it through driving behind and trying to avoid obstacles and driving about the same (impossible by the way :D ).
chart is 4.7Ghz 8700k MCE on memory@3600 vs 4000Mhz
...
maby someone else could make the same experiment and Validate or question this result
An easier way to determine this in GTA is to run their built in benchmark, and then look at their benchmark file and find the 99% percentile number.
The reason this is good is it's a minimum frame rate for the game/benchmark, but culls the outliers like when loading. Plus easy to run, very good for comparisons. Uses minimum frame rate, which is always, always more interesting than average.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
I looked into it last week - unfortunately, with the latest updates, I don't believe this benchmarking option exists any more. At least, it doesn't appear for me...
I looked into it last week - unfortunately, with the latest updates, I don't believe this benchmarking option exists any more. At least, it doesn't appear for me...
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
I got my radiator case ready so next week Putting it in.
Anyone interested Ill post it thingiverse ect.
Its a cheap Volkswagen polo radiator if i remember correctly.
Wery efficient. I only regret Putting plugini directly in it.
[IMG]http://i66.tinypic.com/2rwpc82.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/wbfo9i.jpg[/IMG]
I got my radiator case ready so next week Putting it in.
Anyone interested Ill post it thingiverse ect.
Its a cheap Volkswagen polo radiator if i remember correctly.
Wery efficient. I only regret Putting plugini directly in it.
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
I just wanna say ANYONE GETTING AN 8700K DON´T BUY GIGABYTE.
I don´t like this motherboard.
bios looks like gimped crap and what´s most annoying,
their support SUCKS
I have a small problem and i say it´s small only because i game with WIN7
but i also have win10 installed. both new clean installs.
In my windows 7 system everything related to amplifier works perfect
Windows 10 does not detect my amplifier (denon avr-x1200W)
well kind of.
i have it hooked up throught my titanX with hdmi.
the connection sound is heard. but the amplifier is not shown in audio devices.
the display can´t be seen in nvidia control panel in display/change resolution.
the display is shown in the windows display properties panels but the virutal screen displayed in the menus is smaller than my main screen (1080p) and you can´t do nothing to it. no properties nada.
Still everything worked on my sandybridge build. windows 10 and windows 7
I have even tried different gpu drivers.
the only difference now is my motherboard.
and if i have not missed some driver in the installation race i can´t think any other culprict as
the motherboard.
but anyways i have never had so sticky new system build than i had with GIGABYTE.
and look at the supports answers.
Hello,
1. Please check the music and amplifier support 5.1.
2. Suggest to set audio output from amplifier under Microsoft playback.
WTF ?????
1. have you ever heard that some aplifier connected through hdmi into a pc would not be supported ?
2. WTF i don´t even understand what that means. i know it´s not an answer but i don´t even understand what it means.
I just wanna say ANYONE GETTING AN 8700K DON´T BUY GIGABYTE.
I don´t like this motherboard.
bios looks like gimped crap and what´s most annoying,
their support SUCKS
I have a small problem and i say it´s small only because i game with WIN7
but i also have win10 installed. both new clean installs.
In my windows 7 system everything related to amplifier works perfect
Windows 10 does not detect my amplifier (denon avr-x1200W)
well kind of.
i have it hooked up throught my titanX with hdmi.
the connection sound is heard. but the amplifier is not shown in audio devices.
the display can´t be seen in nvidia control panel in display/change resolution.
the display is shown in the windows display properties panels but the virutal screen displayed in the menus is smaller than my main screen (1080p) and you can´t do nothing to it. no properties nada.
Still everything worked on my sandybridge build. windows 10 and windows 7
I have even tried different gpu drivers.
the only difference now is my motherboard.
and if i have not missed some driver in the installation race i can´t think any other culprict as
the motherboard.
but anyways i have never had so sticky new system build than i had with GIGABYTE.
and look at the supports answers.
Hello,
1. Please check the music and amplifier support 5.1.
2. Suggest to set audio output from amplifier under Microsoft playback.
WTF ?????
1. have you ever heard that some aplifier connected through hdmi into a pc would not be supported ?
2. WTF i don´t even understand what that means. i know it´s not an answer but i don´t even understand what it means.
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
3D Vision must live! NVIDIA, don't let us down!
I'm not sure that's true mate.
If we think the bottleneck is x
We increase the size of x by y%
Result: we see a performance increase by y%,
Then we can absolutely say that the bottleneck is x.
i.e.
If we have a bottle, with the inside neck of the bottle diameter 10mm.
We increase the diameter area of the neck by 10%
We observe that the flow of water through the neck has also increased by 10%,
Then, we can absolutely conclude that the bottle neck was the "bottleneck", because increasing the diameter of the bottle neck by y% also increased the output by y%.
If, however, the flow had not increased, only then can we conclude that the bottleneck lies someplace else.
Memory speed, especially for you :)
(I uninstalled GTA5 due to it being a space hog, but still have TW3 installed).
Witcher 3 @ 7700K 5GHz, 4.7GHz Cache/Uncore. AVX Offset 0. MCE ON.
Ultra preset
Resolution:720p
VSync OFF
All Hairworks OFF.
Novigrad Square signpost, look to the right, up the road.
DDR4 3600MHz 15-15-15-35 Memory
3D Vision OFF (In NV Control Panel):
FPS 150
3D Vision ON:
FPS 73
3D Vision Drop in performance = (150-73)/150 = 51%
DDR4 1600MHz 15-15-15-35 Memory
3D Vision OFF (In NV Control Panel):
FPS 83
3D Vision ON:
FPS 58
3D Vision Drop in performance = (83-58)/83 = 30%
Conclusion:
We are severely bottlenecking the 5GHz 7700K by severely limiting memory bandwidth to 1600MHz when the minimum intel recommends for even 4.2GHz is 2133MHz.
By doing this, we see that the 3D vision CPU bottleneck has been removed, now only causing a 30% drop in performance, compared to the 51% drop in performance when there was no memory bandwidth limit.
Conclusion - further evidence that the bottleneck does not lie in the memory, but the cores of the CPU.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
That would only be true for a scenario where the value we are measuring is CPU based. In this case, we are looking at frame rate, which is the entire pipeline, not just CPU use. It makes no sense to expect linear scaling when the components are so wildly disparate.
Case in point- the so called DrawCalls bottleneck. The GPU has plenty of reserve capacity but is starved of data to process by the CPU. If you bump the CPU up by 10%, you bump up the number of DrawCalls by 10%, which can unlock waaay more than 10% fps. Because DrawCalls is a subset of the entire process, and not all of these pieces have linear effects.
Cool results on memory usage. One other takeaway is that RAM speed has a surprisingly large impact nowadays. It wasn't that long ago that it was ignored as a performance variable.
Probably more to the point, the real goal is to get a balanced system, without any given component being a mismatch.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Re: Memory,
If we assume that the memory becomes the only bottleneck once downclocked, then we can reach an interesting conclusion:
83fps = 1600MHz
150fps = x
x = 150/83 * 1600 = 2892MHz
This means that basically, anything faster than 3000MHz won't get you faster performance, which in fact a lot of benchmarks have shown, even on a 5GHz 7700K.
Regarding your point about memory bandwidth not being a factor in the past - I personally believe that it was always a factor - the benchmarkers never knew what they were doing back in the day, just as most modern benchmarkers run their CPU benchmarks at 4k - the GPU was always the bottleneck.
I bet if we go back to the times when benchmarkers showed no difference, and we benchmarked heavily CPU limited games at low resolutions, we would see the same effect from memory on performance as we see today.
I facepalm when I see people remark something along the lines of "Oh, I'll buy this crappy CPU because at 4k there was no difference between this and an 8700K @ 5.2GHz".
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Asus Deluxe Gen3, Core i7 2700k@4.5Ghz, GTX 1080Ti, 16 GB RAM, Win 7 64bit
Samsung Pro 250 GB SSD, 4 TB WD Black (games)
Benq XL2720Z
I played around with mem with gtaV...i felt like when running 4000Mhz the overal performance felt more consistent and smooth i made some FPS benchmarks with fraps and to verify my "feeling" the 4000Mhz performs better than the 3600Mhz, or atleast it does not dip that down ...wouldn´t you say ?
I played the second mission we used to meaasure the fps earlier. just played it through driving behind and trying to avoid obstacles and driving about the same (impossible by the way :D ).
chart is 4.7Ghz 8700k MCE on memory@3600 vs 4000Mhz
maby someone else could make the same experiment and Validate or question this result
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
https://mega.nz/#!JIN2hS7L!_BoOBLRs6xROBFB3nK5-DCz0oORJfsd4yjPrrMaGU-s
the time it took to start driving is different everytime as you can see from the charts
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
http://i65.tinypic.com/282nt3t.jpg
it has been taken with afterburner so i don´t know it it´s comparable to fraps but i got 35 fps with my old system from the bench now 48
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
Someone can make better please do from the xls is uploaded.
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
An easier way to determine this in GTA is to run their built in benchmark, and then look at their benchmark file and find the 99% percentile number.
The reason this is good is it's a minimum frame rate for the game/benchmark, but culls the outliers like when loading. Plus easy to run, very good for comparisons. Uses minimum frame rate, which is always, always more interesting than average.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Anyone interested Ill post it thingiverse ect.
Its a cheap Volkswagen polo radiator if i remember correctly.
Wery efficient. I only regret Putting plugini directly in it.
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
I don´t like this motherboard.
bios looks like gimped crap and what´s most annoying,
their support SUCKS
I have a small problem and i say it´s small only because i game with WIN7
but i also have win10 installed. both new clean installs.
In my windows 7 system everything related to amplifier works perfect
Windows 10 does not detect my amplifier (denon avr-x1200W)
well kind of.
i have it hooked up throught my titanX with hdmi.
the connection sound is heard. but the amplifier is not shown in audio devices.
the display can´t be seen in nvidia control panel in display/change resolution.
the display is shown in the windows display properties panels but the virutal screen displayed in the menus is smaller than my main screen (1080p) and you can´t do nothing to it. no properties nada.
Still everything worked on my sandybridge build. windows 10 and windows 7
I have even tried different gpu drivers.
the only difference now is my motherboard.
and if i have not missed some driver in the installation race i can´t think any other culprict as
the motherboard.
but anyways i have never had so sticky new system build than i had with GIGABYTE.
and look at the supports answers.
Hello,
1. Please check the music and amplifier support 5.1.
2. Suggest to set audio output from amplifier under Microsoft playback.
WTF ?????
1. have you ever heard that some aplifier connected through hdmi into a pc would not be supported ?
2. WTF i don´t even understand what that means. i know it´s not an answer but i don´t even understand what it means.
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
Asus Deluxe Gen3, Core i7 2700k@4.5Ghz, GTX 1080Ti, 16 GB RAM, Win 7 64bit
Samsung Pro 250 GB SSD, 4 TB WD Black (games)
Benq XL2720Z