Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

[Wanabe]

I7 7700K
AMD 6800, Windows 10
GPU Driver 22.8.2
I7 7700k @ stock
Spectre & Meltdown Protection temporarily disabled for tests, untested performance impact if enabled

Version 5.10, Split Vendetta only

2X8GB 3200 15-17-17-35-2T
205 FPS Main menu

Young gun: 111-133, average around 129

Dense Empire:
Test 1: 6-16 average 13, 27 FPS while paused
Test 2: 12 minimum otherwise same results

Dense Empire Empty: First and Second test: 4 FPS with only decimal point deviations

Version 3.30, Split Vendetta only

2X8GB 3200 15-17-17-35-2T
205 FPS Main menu

Young gun: 131-138, average around 134, 382 FPS while paused
Dense Empire: 14-20, average around 18. 29 FPS while paused
Dense Empire Empty: 128-135, average around 130. 270 FPS while paused

4X8GB 3200 16-18-18-36-2T, Dual Rank Disabled (Interleaving OFF)

Young gun:
Test 1 (done after testing both dense empires without fully relaunching game): 126-138, average around 128, 350 FPS while paused
Test 2 (relaunched game): 133-138, average around 135, 375 FPS while paused

Dense Empire: 12-22. average 20, 30 FPS while paused. Dropped to 12 only when the ship bumped the player ship, after and before that the minimum only went down to 19.
Dense Empire Empty: 131-136, average around 132. Fluctuations of 265-272 FPS while paused

4X8GB 3200 16-18-18-36-2T, Dual Rank Enabled (Interleaving ON)

Young gun: 132-139, average around 135, 389 FPS while paused
Dense Empire: No noticeable change from the previous test with interleaving disabled
Dense Empire Empty: 137-142, average around 139. Fluctuations of 295-303 FPS while paused

4X8GB 3200 15-17-17-34-2T, Dual Rank Enabled (Interleaving ON)
214-240 FPS Main menu

Young gun: 133-137, average around 135, 397-401 FPS while paused
Dense Empire: Marginally higher than previous test but decimal differences. 31 FPS while paused
Dense Empire Empty: 137-142, average around 139. Fluctuations of 300-309 FPS while paused

These FPS values were taken using the games built-in FPS monitor over "some time". I didn't look into using software to automatically record all the FPS values over a fixed time period for proper accuracy which would certainly help with some of the inconsistencies with recording it this way. WIth that in mind I hope the above is still somewhat useful information.

All 5.10 tests showed lower FPS than 3.30 using these old savefiles. Clearly "Dense Empire Empty" was somehow broken in the 5.10 tests I tried, which is most likely a bug due to the age of the savefiles. Egosoft have shown through their various updates to X4 and their previous titles that they have a trend to noticeably improve performance from each major game update with some smaller improvements in between the bigger releases. I think it is likely that the FPS reductions is due to it being an older save that perhaps the game can't properly account for. I wonder if after the next game update from Egosoft is released if it's worth making/trying out a new set of saves without some lingering "old game" stuff going on.

I think all the Low Attention calculations are in a fairly good place nowadays, at least for the current Vanilla game setup. Improvements are always ongoing, naturally. However at this stage I'd like to see some more work on finding ways to reduce the cost of High Attention. Busier areas in general cost a lot in terms of performance as it stands unfortunately. Even pausing the game during these busy scenes can result in "low" FPS.

[magitsu]

Asteroid fields + big battles seem the most obvious reasons for chugging. I'd avoid in the future having excess of both at the same place, i.e. don't make another Second Contact Flashpoint. Matrix 451 is also bad, even with 5800x3d.

[Imperial Good]

I think it is likely that the FPS reductions is due to it being an older save that perhaps the game can't properly account for. I wonder if after the next game update from Egosoft is released if it's worth making/trying out a new set of saves without some lingering "old game" stuff going on.

There are many factors. Most obvious of which is that more DLCs will mean lower frame rate due to bigger universe to simulate. The other part has to do with migration changes which might temporarily impact performance and affect the performance profile of an area on load. Lastly there are small changes that might impact the performance profile of an area, for example volumetric fog.

[Wanabe]

There are many factors. Most obvious of which is that more DLCs will mean lower frame rate due to bigger universe to simulate. The other part has to do with migration changes which might temporarily impact performance and affect the performance profile of an area on load. Lastly there are small changes that might impact the performance profile of an area, for example volumetric fog.

Oh for sure, there are so many variables that can effect the performance from one patch to another. Even with keeping the same DLC enabled (Split Vendetta) to try to keep the DLC aspect the same there are still all the other various changes in effect. AI probably has some improved capabilities, low attention can account for more factors and/or is more accurate in places. The updates themselves add in some extra ship jobs for newer story-line elements regardless of DLC presence and also the new Scrap collecting NPC ships. All the possibilities you mentioned too of course etc.

I think Egosoft have done a fantastic job on making the game run as well as it does, especially when accounting for the overall heavier universe activity via DLCS and updates. They have not only added in more stuff going on simultaniously but found ways to improve the details of the simulation (such as better AI decisions) along the way, while also offsetting the performance impacts as much as possible with some heavy optimization passes.

Version 5.10, Split Vendetta only
4X8GB 3200 15-17-17-34-2T, Dual Rank Enabled (Interleaving ON)
214 FPS Main menu

Young Gun: 117-135 average 134, 400 fps while paused
Dense Empire: 13-19 average 17, 29 fps while paused
Dense Empire Empty:
Before moving a tiny amount: 4FPS, 94 FPS while paused
After Collision: 55-73, average 71, 104 FPS while paused

It's possible that the frame-rate issues from Dense Empire Empty could be due to collision detection. Moving a tiny amount forward caused my ship to collide with something and looking in third person there was another ship extremely close to the player ship. I think the "after" numbers won't be particularly comparable to anything though because of the random factors which occur such as where the ship ends up facing due to when the player accelerates forward and how much by. The game may have a slight random factor to the force of collision too.

[burger1]

version 5.1 all dlcs
i7-13700k
1920x1080
ddr5 5600 cl36 2x16 single rank sticks could probably easily add +10% with better ram
1660 gtx - didn't seem to be limiting fps at the settings I used but does in asteroid fields at stock settings gpu hits 98%+ usage can fix that though for 60 fps fsr etc....
win 10 pro 64bit - fresh install
disabling e cores in task manager didn't seem to change stuff much

young gun empty 150-158 fps

dense empire 28-38 fps

empire empty sector after moving out of the ship that got spawned on my ship 120-133 fps

[burger1]

version 5.1 all dlcs
i7-13700k
1920x1080
ddr5 5600 cl36 2x16 single rank sticks could probably easily add +10% with better ram
1660 gtx - didn't seem to be limiting fps at the settings I used but does in asteroid fields at stock settings gpu hits 98%+ usage can fix that though for 60 fps fsr etc....
win 11 pro 64bit - fresh install

young gun empty 148-154 fps - 81% gpu usage so might have been gpu limited

dense empire 28-34 fps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtIFL4Pwhaw

dense empire empty after moving out of the ship that got spawned on my ship 106-116 fps



So win 10 faster than 11 but win 11 uses more power? Asteroid belts seemed a bit higher fps in win 11? Resizable bar, fsr, etc... not used....

[Imperial Good]

So win 10 faster than 11 but win 11 uses more power? Asteroid belts seemed a bit higher fps in win 11? Resizable bar, fsr, etc... not used....

Resizeable Bar should be used when possible. Especially with the latest Nvidia drivers. It is basically a performance optimisation as it allows the graphic driver to do less work when moving buffers and other such data to/from the GPU. It does not impact visual fidelity at all.

Windows 11 better manages the P+E core hybrid architecture of 12th and 13th generation Intel processors. As such it is expected to see better performance in some situations where E cores end up being used over P cores. Worse performance can also be expected in other situations due to some of Windows 11 security features, but that is the price to pay for better security.

[burger1]

Rebars on but I am pretty sure it isn't doing much since only 30xx nvidia gpus are supported.

[LandogarX4]

Sure would be nice to have an actual benchmark...

[Imperial Good]

Sure would be nice to have an actual benchmark...

I would take that graph with a pinch of salt as the performance numbers reported in this thread are for all kinds of different versions. Unless you did the tests yourself using 3.20 with Split Vendetta only.

[LandogarX4]

Sure would be nice to have an actual benchmark...

I would take that graph with a pinch of salt as the performance numbers reported in this thread are for all kinds of different versions. Unless you did the tests yourself using 3.20 with Split Vendetta only.

The graph is based on the recent numbers in this thread, all with v5.10 and all/most DLC enabled. There's lots of noise, sure. Hence my comment about the need for an actual benchmark.

But I don't think the relative underperformance of the 5800X3D in the dense empire saves (based on 2 separate user reports) is a fluke. The higher-scoring Intel CPUs were tested after the 5800X3D, so their scores would also be affected by any changes to the saves in newer versions/DLCs.

So it seems that the extra L3 cache does not help much when the simulation is bursting with objects. I would have expected the opposite (i.e. the extra L3 cache helps especially in dense empires), but that really isn't borne out by the data. So Intel CPUs seem like the much better choice for X4.

[Imperial Good]

The graph is based on the recent numbers in this thread, all with v5.10 and all/most DLC enabled. There's lots of noise, sure. Hence my comment about the need for an actual benchmark.

None of those saves are valid for anything beyond 3.20 and Split Vendetta. People have reported huge run-to-run variances on the same processor just due to how the migration scripts spawn stuff differently.

But I don't think the relative underperformance of the 5800X3D in the dense empire saves (based on 2 separate user reports) is a fluke. The higher-scoring Intel CPUs were tested after the 5800X3D, so their scores would also be affected by any changes to the saves in newer versions/DLCs.

The migration from an old save to new might be subject to RNG due to having to spawn in missing elements that were added since the save.

Ignoring all other tests with different DLCs, it appears that the 5800X3D and the 12900k roughly tie each other.

All non-X3D variants of the Zen3 line-up suffer from low effective frequency due to cache misses. I would not be surprised if this was the case for the 12900k, with the 13700k beating it purely due to and by the raised cache amount.

[LandogarX4]

Ignoring all other tests with different DLCs, it appears that the 5800X3D and the 12900k roughly tie each other.

Let's say that's the case. That would actually imply that X4 is not very cache-sensitive at all. See the Factorio benchmark (from 'Hardware Unboxed' on Youtube) below for how the differential should look like for a game that is really cache sensitive. In fact, the 5800X3D beats the 12900K in the average game. Hence, the parity of the 2 CPUs in X4 implies that X4 is less cache-sensitive than the average game!

[Eyeklops]

Speaking of the 5800X3D and factorio I found this information (Reddit Link):

5800X3D + 32GB@3600MHz vs. i7-12700KF (overclocked) + 32 GB@3600MHz

• Flame_Sla 10k spm - 334 UPS vs 268 UPS, 24% win for Ryzen
• Flame_Sla 20k spm - 139 UPS vs 128 UPS, 8.5% win for Ryzen
• Flame_Sla 30k spm - 70 UPS vs 79 UPS, 12.8% win for Intel

My limited knowledge guesses:

1. Intel has an overall more performant memory system than AMD.
2. AMD X3D uses massive L3 cache (to reduce L3 misses) and gain an advantage in the large majority of games.
3. Large amounts of L3 misses can allow Intel to pass up AMD.

This may explain why Intel is able to overtake the X3D in Dense Empire. A well established X4 savegame may push the X3D to have so many cache misses Intel's better memory subsystem allows it to retake the lead.

I do agree with Imperial Good that migration from an older save into 5.10 could be causing variability. It may be time to create a new set of savegames and re-run these tests so we can all get back on the same page.

[Imperial Good]

Intel has an overall more performant memory system than AMD.

It will be interesting to see if Intel maintains this advantage in 14th generation when they migrate to their own chiplet design.

It will also be interesting to see if second generation 3D cache processors from AMD (Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 series) improve some of the weaknesses.

[lmike]

Hi. My spec is
CPU: 13900K - 100mv
GPU: RTX 4090
RAM: 32 GB DDR5-6200 CL40
OS - Windows 11
All DLCs enabled, v 5.10

This is my results:

Resolution: Windowed 1280x720
Settings: Low preset, no MSAA or upscaling

Dense Empire Empty: 126 - 130 (pressed TAB to escape outside another ship)
Dense Empire: 30-33. After 5 min 22-25
Young Gun Empty: 156

E-cores 0% utilization. They are useless. CPU power consumption is about 60-80W

[LandogarX4]

APPROXIMATE performance chart

[Berni]

13900K@5,8GHz
RTX 4090@70%PL
64GB DDR5 5600CL40
3440x1440 with AA enabled

All DLCs

young gun: 157
dense empire: 35-40
dense empire empty: 135-141

My results are more or less the same like my old 12900K (4,9GHz) + RTX 3090.

I think the X4-Engine has reached it's limits because it can't profit any more from much higher (single core) clock speeds.

[Buzz2005]

it should on long games and that dense empire, im jealous of those fps of yours and should have got intel cpu when I did upgrade, seems overall way better for x4, and some nice intel cpus are even cheaper then amd

[Eyeklops]

64GB DDR5 5600CL40

For such a high spec PC (13900k/4090) this ram is mid-to-low end from a performance standpoint. 5600CL40 has 14.29ns of latency which is pretty high and 5600MT is also mid-to-low end for DDR5 bandwidth. With X4 being very memory transaction intensive I suspect this is your bottleneck. I can't think of any games needing 64GB so I'd suggest dropping total system memory down to 32GB and pushing the performance level to at least 6000CL30 (10.00ns).

If your motherboard and CPU can handle it 6600CL32 (9.70ns) is even better but would be a much smaller gain over 6000CL30. If you're trying to be a total madlad, $$ is no object, and your CPU memory controller is a golden sample, 7800CL36 sports a truly impressive 9.23ns latency. Be prepared to pay $400 for 32GB tho.

If you really need 64GB that can be had in 6000CL30 but it's not cheap ($450).

EDIT: If you do go with something very high end like 7800CL36 make sure you have good airflow over the ram as it runs at 1.45v and can get quite toasty. If you think heat will be a problem consider the 6600CL32 (1.40v, a little cooler) or the 6000CL30 (1.35v, a lot cooler).

EDIT2: Thinking more about it I'd only recommend 7800CL36 if you've have experience tweaking memory timings. That speed is so high end there is a much higher probability of CPU memory controller or motherboard issues preventing a "turn-key" fully stable system.