Jump to content

Benchmark Testing of Spaced out

JohnFrancis
 Share

Recommended Posts

gabberworld

gabberworld

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Kerdeld said:

nope it's exactly the same as before with 1024x768, I tested it twice and both 106 seconds (the 2nd run was a reload) also 106sec

ok. maybe yeah it not give any effect the users who have already almost prefect results

maybe its not the resolution but instead off that mouse fps bug what i been talked sometime ago

Edited by gabberworld
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kerdeld

Kerdeld

Posted
Posted

I know if you want more fps in Oxygen not included you can set affinity to specific cores and gain a few frames but this didn't give me any better score with the stopwatch benchmark. 

But it might be useful for some users if u need slightly more frames.

For the 5xxx Ryzen series if you have 12 cores it's:

CPU 0 no 
CPU 1 no 
CPU 2 yes
CPU 3 no 
CPU 4 yes
CPU 5 no 
CPU 6 yes
CPU 7 no
CPU 8 yes
CPU 9 no 
CPU 10 yes
CPU 11 no

My guess if you have 5800x or higher it will be the same but just skip the first few cores and pick a few cores that are not threads but physical cores. For me a total of 5 physical cores active give me the best result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tyraelpl

tyraelpl

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Screwygirl said:

Ahh, I see. There isn't an XMP option in my BIOS, one of the irritating quirks of my laptop model. The only option it gives me is to enable overclocking, which I don't like doing. I do have CPU-Z, and it is extremely helpful.

It is possible that xmp options are hidden in the OC part of settings and become apparent once you enable those. You can check it without saving changes by picking "exit and discard changes" when exiting, just to see if you even have the option to utilize xmp.

I dunno why it's done like that but when buying a mem kit with a rather good parameters it's not always denoted clearly that those need you to have xmp support in you motherboard's bios for those cos they are in fact xmp. 
Anyway, GL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TehMessiah

TehMessiah

Posted
Posted (edited)

I did this for laughs as I know my system isn't worthy of comparison but hey, you have to try.
Time : 4:14.08
CPU : Intel i7 2600 LGA-1155, 3400mhz
Graphics card : MSI GTX 1050 Ti OC/AERO ITX - 1290MHz Core 3504MHz Mem
RAM : 16GB (4x4gb) (New) Kinston 1600 running at 1333MHz (Old - Samsung DDR3 1333MHz)

Motherboard: DELL 0VNP2H - Intel Q67 (Cougar Point) [B3]

CAS : 9/9/9/24
HDD : OWC Mercury Extreme Pro SSD (240GB)

Update: I had to reinstall windows due to some other issues and had also previously had an i5 but upgraded to the i7 without reinstalling windows. I switched the ram out for the Kingston and now my new time is 3:41.06. I'm not sure which of the changes changed it. Considering the ram is throttled at 1333MHz from 1600, the reinstall of Windows 10 reconfigured the i7 better or there was less clutter on my hdd now.

Edited by TehMessiah
Update
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orpheus2468

Orpheus2468

Posted
Posted

My Benschmark results:

Time: 2:24 (144s)

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X

Graphics card: GeForce RTX 2080

RAM: 2xCorsair Dominator Platinum DIMM Kit 16GB, DDR4-3600 + 2x Corsair Dominator Platinum DIMM Kit 8GB, DDR4-3600

SSD: Samsung MZ-76E1T0B/EU 860 EVO 1 TB (For the game 500GB SSD for OS)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raukgorth

Raukgorth

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Raukgorth said:

Time : 02:14.58
CPU : i7 8700k (no OC)
Graphics card : RTX 3080
RAM : 64 GB DDR4 3200 Mhz (4x16)

CAS : 14/14/14/34
HDD: NVMe  Samsung 256 GB
(no restart, Firefox and Citrix Workspace open)

Today I overclocked my RAM to 3333 and CPU to 4800

It brought down the time to 2:03

Edited by Raukgorth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Putz1103

Putz1103

Posted
Posted

To super simplify the current statistics:

There is a high correlation between CPU frequency and game performance with Intel processors, a lesser degree of correlation with AMD processors.

There is a medium correlation on ram frequency for Intel based systems, almost no correlation with ram frequency on AMD systems.  This could be entirely due to the fact that odds are if someone buys a higher end intel CPU they are likely to buy higher end ram as well.  Although there were several datasets of the exact same system with multiple ram speed settings with a definite correlation with game performance.

There is absolutely no correlation with number of cores and game performance for either processor set...

cpu_clock_time.PNG

ram_freq_time.PNG

core_count_time.PNG

oni_cpu_times.xls

  • Like 4
  • Health 1
  • Big Ups 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dezixn

dezixn

Posted
Posted

Time : 1:59 or 119 seconds
CPU : Intel i7-10700K @ 5.2 GHz (Hyperthread off)
Graphics Card : Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC
RAM : 32 GB DDR4 3000 MHz 

CAS: 19, 19, 19, 43

WD Blue SN550 NVMe SSD 1Ttb

Couldn't get my system stable with my DRAM XMP profile with slightly lower CAS and 3200mhz while maintaining 5.2 GHz. A better OC'er probably could but this was semi quick and dirty for me.

It sure seems that even with my slightly outdated Intel the most important factor is raw CPU speed. I've considered upgrading and while the newest generation CPUs are better, they don't seem THAT much better to justify the price. I suppose we'll find out with these benchmarks. May definitely consider at least a high end RAM upgrade pending these results.

Thanks for all you do FJ. An official response for Klei would be nice also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nets

nets

Posted
Posted

Curiosity got the best of me, as i wanted to know how my potato hold up the obviously newer and better machines. So for ****'sn'giggles!

Time: 206 seconds (3 minutes 26 seconds

CPU: i7-4770K @ 3.5 GHz with turbo-clock disabled (so it doesn't pass above 3.5 GHz) hyperthreading turned off in BIOS (4 core) means each core gets twice the cache memory vs hyperthreaded.
RAM: 16 GB DDR3L (1600 MHz) (not overclocked)
Motherboard: Some MSI  (product code was once HP ENVY Phoenix 800-020eo)
GFX: GeForce GTX 680 (2GB GDDR5) running at 1680x1050 resolution

It was a jerky experience, something that would drive me mad on the daily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Putz1103

Putz1103

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, dezixn said:

Time : 1:59 or 119 seconds
CPU : Intel i7-10700K @ 5.2 GHz (Hyperthread off)
Graphics Card : Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC
RAM : 32 GB DDR4 3000 MHz 

CAS: 19, 19, 19, 43

WD Blue SN550 NVMe SSD 1Ttb

Couldn't get my system stable with my DRAM XMP profile with slightly lower CAS and 3200mhz while maintaining 5.2 GHz. A better OC'er probably could but this was semi quick and dirty for me.

It sure seems that even with my slightly outdated Intel the most important factor is raw CPU speed. I've considered upgrading and while the newest generation CPUs are better, they don't seem THAT much better to justify the price. I suppose we'll find out with these benchmarks. May definitely consider at least a high end RAM upgrade pending these results.

Thanks for all you do FJ. An official response for Klei would be nice also.

Using the statistics from this thread in a super simplified manner:

Upgrading your ram to be 3600MHz would improve your game performance to 116 seconds (a 2.5% gain)  Upgrading your CPU to a 11700k (along with the ram upgrade) would give you a total performance increase to 113 seconds (a 5.3% increase).

In my head that is definitely not worth it...  But that's just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dezixn

dezixn

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Putz1103 said:

Using the statistics from this thread in a super simplified manner:

Upgrading your ram to be 3600MHz would improve your game performance to 116 seconds (a 2.5% gain)  Upgrading your CPU to a 11700k (along with the ram upgrade) would give you a total performance increase to 113 seconds (a 5.3% increase).

In my head that is definitely not worth it...  But that's just my opinion.

Yup. IDK whether to be happy that I'm already one of the fastest systems, or sad that I have very little room for improvement. The game is unbearable late game with multiple asteroids even with my fast system.

I think I'll wait for the next gen CPUs and DDR5 and see what happens then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Putz1103

Putz1103

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, nets said:

Curiosity got the best of me, as i wanted to know how my potato hold up the obviously newer and better machines. So for ****'sn'giggles!

Time: 206 seconds (3 minutes 26 seconds

CPU: i7-4770K @ 3.5 GHz with turbo-clock disabled (so it doesn't pass above 3.5 GHz) hyperthreading turned off in BIOS (4 core) means each core gets twice the cache memory vs hyperthreaded.
RAM: 16 GB DDR3L (1600 MHz) (not overclocked)
Motherboard: Some MSI  (product code was once HP ENVY Phoenix 800-020eo)
GFX: GeForce GTX 680 (2GB GDDR5) running at 1680x1050 resolution

It was a jerky experience, something that would drive me mad on the daily.

Just increasing your CPU speed to 4.0 GHz (3.9 is the standard turbo boost) should increase your in game performance by at least 14% (according to this thread).  Not super impressive, but that's a bit of a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
m.stitek

m.stitek

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, dezixn said:

Yup. IDK whether to be happy that I'm already one of the fastest systems, or sad that I have very little room for improvement. The game is unbearable late game with multiple asteroids even with my fast system.

I think I'll wait for the next gen CPUs and DDR5 and see what happens then.

To be honest, even if you had a setup from, let's say, 2024, I don't think the results would be hugely better. I think we're limited by the game engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
darthon

darthon

Posted
Posted

I have a gaming laptop with 8 cores but ONI only maybe utilizes 2 at the most and doesn't help me much with slower processor speed:
Time : 141 seconds
CPU : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-10875H CPU @ 2.30GHz
Graphics card : NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU
RAM : 32GB (16G*2) DDR4 3200MHz
HDD : 1TB NVMe SSD

Link to comment
Share on other sites
M0nkeyDung

M0nkeyDung

Posted
Posted

Did not bother to "restart" and these are those results:

Time : 144s (2:24:32)
CPU : Intel(R) Core (TM) i5-8400 CPU @ 2.8GHz
Graphics card : Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
RAM : 64GB DDR4 3600MHz
CAS : 16,19,19,39
HDD : M.2 SanDisk SD9SN8W128G1102

 

As you can see, some of those here with faster CPUs (Intel), better graphics cards, and more memory are slower than mine with my hardware.  It's all about the tuning of the system!

 

Thanks for all you do FJ!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PicaMula

PicaMula

Posted
Posted (edited)

I did restart my PC

Time : 226s
CPU : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz 
Graphics card : GTX 650 (ancient stuff)
RAM : 2x8 GB DDR3 1067 MHz

CAS : (info got from CPU-Z "Memory" tab)
Channel # Dual
DRAM Frequency 532.1 MHz
FSB:DRAM 1:4
CAS# Latency 7.0 clocks
RAS# to CAS# Delay 7 clocks
RAS# Precharge 7 clocks
Cycle time 20 clocks

HDD :
Operating system: WDC WDS120G2G0A-00JH30 (120GB SSD)
Steam / ONI: WDC WD10EZEX-00BN5A0 (1TB HDD 7200 RPM)

[edit]

Damn my poor old machine against your supercomputers is saddening. I guess what's hurting me the most is my DDR3 RAM or my ancient graphics card. Very old version of i7 probably not helping either xD

Edited by PicaMula
  • Health 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gabberworld

gabberworld

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, PicaMula said:

I did restart my PC

Time : 226s
CPU : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz 
Graphics card : GTX 650 (ancient stuff)
RAM : 2x8 GB DDR3 1067 MHz

CAS : (info got from CPU-Z "Memory" tab)
Channel # Dual
DRAM Frequency 532.1 MHz
FSB:DRAM 1:4
CAS# Latency 7.0 clocks
RAS# to CAS# Delay 7 clocks
RAS# Precharge 7 clocks
Cycle time 20 clocks

HDD :
Operating system: WDC WDS120G2G0A-00JH30 (120GB SSD)
Steam / ONI: WDC WD10EZEX-00BN5A0 (1TB HDD 7200 RPM)

[edit]

Damn my poor old machine against your supercomputers is saddening. I guess what's hurting me the most is my DDR3 RAM or my ancient graphics card. Very old version of i7 probably not helping either xD

why you have 1067 mhz ram? your cpu supports the 1600 mhz ones

your time is interesting tho. its not that bad but i feel you could make even better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zalmaniac

Zalmaniac

Posted
Posted

GPU does indeed practicly nothing. I had a 1:56 with my GTX 780, got my new RTX 3060TI today and got a 1:54.

Reposting the original test for reference.

Time : 1:56
CPU :  Ryzen 9 5900X
Graphics card : GTX 780
RAM : 2x16GB DDR4 3200Mhz

CAS :
HDD :  WD Black SN750 1TB M.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thehaunted318

thehaunted318

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Putz1103 said:

To super simplify the current statistics:

There is a high correlation between CPU frequency and game performance with Intel processors, a lesser degree of correlation with AMD processors.

There is a medium correlation on ram frequency for Intel based systems, almost no correlation with ram frequency on AMD systems.  This could be entirely due to the fact that odds are if someone buys a higher end intel CPU they are likely to buy higher end ram as well.  Although there were several datasets of the exact same system with multiple ram speed settings with a definite correlation with game performance.

There is absolutely no correlation with number of cores and game performance for either processor set...

cpu_clock_time.PNG

ram_freq_time.PNG

core_count_time.PNG

oni_cpu_times.xls 48.5 kB · 1 download

RAM frequency tells only half the story. The other part is timings. A RAM module with 3000 Mhz and CL 15 has a latency of 10 ns, a module with 3200 Mhz and CL 15 also has a latency of 10 ns, same 10ns for a 3600mhz and CL 18. They should roughly perform in the same area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...