JohnFrancis

Benchmark Testing of Spaced out

Recommended Posts

gabberworld    287
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kerdeld    8

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tyraelpl    7
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my results

Time : 2:23 or 143 Seconds
CPU : AMD Ryzen 7 3800X @ 4.2 Ghz
Graphics card : Radeon RX5700
RAM : 32 GB DDR4 3200 Mhz

HDD: SSD 970 Evo 500 GB Game Location
HDD: SSD 970 Evo 500 Gb OS Location

 

I did try it before rebooting and got 2:17 on that one

  • GL Happy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TehMessiah    4

I did this for laughs as I know my system isnt 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) Samsung DDR3 1333MHz

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

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

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orpheus2468    0

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)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raukgorth    1
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowingx    1

137.58s

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 @4.2GHz
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
32GB @3000MHz
16-18-18-38 1.2v
Samsung SSD 850 EVO 1TB

 

Edited by shadowingx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dezixn    0

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nets    29

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Putz1103    6
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dezixn    0
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Putz1103    6
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
m.stitek    0
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petrios    0

Time : 2:32 (149 seconds)
CPU : Intel Core i9-10940X @3.30GHz
Graphics card : RTX 2080 Super
RAM : 32GB 3200mhz

HD: Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darthon    0

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnDou    0

Time : 2:13 or 133 seconds
CPU : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-9700K CPU @ 3.60GHz
Graphics card : NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070
RAM : Corsair 32 GB (2x16GB) DDR4 2666 MHz Vengeance LPX (CMK32GX4M2A2666C16)

CAS : 16,18,18,35
HDD : INTEL NVMe SSDPEKNW512G8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M0nkeyDung    0

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PicaMula    3

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kerdeld    8

I wonder if PCI Express 3.0 vs 4.0 does make any difference because of the bandwidth between CPU and Ram i'm still using a b450 motherboard so 3.0 for me, just a random thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gabberworld    287
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zalmaniac    0

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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