The ACC GPU Benchmark Thread

@Jynnantonix, next attempt with "NVIDIA FreeSync" worked a lot better for me...in case you're still interested in such a solution. No need to sacrifice 75 Hz functinoality - 75 Hz works flawlessly and smooth w/o any funny tweaks.

This is a very good result for a 2060.


@AC Support here's one final try: can you give me permission to edit the first post of this thread, again?

 

So, any news on RX 5700/5700 XT in this game? I will be buying soon a card and I'll need to decide between RTX 2060 and RX 5700...

 

What news are you waiting for? Radeon has performed way below its target NVidia competitors in ACC from day one. I contacted both Kunos and AMD, asking for improvements but curiously, the poor performance is always to blame on the other party ;-)

I don't expect any improvements for Radeon GPUs in ACC. Get the 2060.

 

Well, fine, but it does not mean that a new generations of GPU with a new architecture have to perform the same, does it?

So I'm waiting for someone who actually has a 5700 that can confirm us how it performs in ACC with different drivers, different graphic options etc

 

we already have results, look at previous pages
You can easy calculate the result of

5700xt Is doing between 77-and 80 fps depending on the oc
RTX 2060 is doing between 88 and 95
RTX 2070 is 35 % + faster than 5700xt
2070 super or RTX 2080 are around 50% faster and by normal conditions u have to set frame cap to stay in the freesync range

I think 5700/5700xt are great cards but in ACC Nvidia is faster.
Just buy 2060 or 2060 super.

 

Oh yeah I just saw it! Thank you very much bud, I'm thing I'm gonna bet on the green time. Gonna wait though, if custom Navi' s are not pricey, they should drag 2060 prices down...

 

It's more of an UE4 problem it seems.
I doubt Kunos can really do anything about it. Maybe Epic can.

 

Epic will most likely be the 3rd party blaming it on the other 2

@isma_c_r go for the 2060 Super. Reason: 8 GB vs. 6 GB. Depending on the settings, ACC uses up to 6 GB on my system. So with 6 GB VRAM the PC will start using the system RAM which can have bad effects on image smoothness.

They're indeed quite expensive at the moment. The cheapest one I'd buy is the Gainward Phoenix at currently 410 €.

 

There is enough data out there proving them wrong, because UE4 is one of the few engines where Radeon (especially Vega, but also 5700XT) perform badly compared to other engines.
And most UE4 games I could find behave pretty much the same.

 

It would be definitely the card to go for, but the price is a bit steep... I could make the effort and stetch to 350... but I don't think's gonna happen. I'm playing on 1080 and it's going to be like that for a while so I don't think 6gb will be a problem for the moment, but you are absolutely right about potentially running out of VRAM, specially in a game like this where smoothness is critical.

I think I'm going to wait for a 280-ish 2060 non S, a non entry level model. Pray for me guys

 

So a bit of benchmarking from my side.
Been running the test at several resolutions.
CPU: AMD FX-4350
GPU: Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon Vega 64
RAM: DDR3-1333, 8GB
OS: Windows 7 SP1

1920×1080: Frames: 3368 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 56.133 - Min: 43 - Max: 91
2560×1440: Frames: 2723 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 45.383 - Min: 35 - Max: 68
3840×1080: Frames: 3481 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 41.350 - Min: 32 - Max: 58
5120×1440: Frames: 1725 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 28.750 - Min: 22 - Max: 40

Must say though, 3840×1080 felt really smooth still, thanks to LFC.
Only at 1440 it felt a bit laggy and warping here and there, certainly not recommended at these settings.
The drop-off from 1920×1080 up to 3840×1080 also shows a bit here that I'm CPU-bound I think, since normally I'd expect a larger drop in average FPS when doubling the resolution.

Looking forward to the Zen 2 migration that is going to happen soon.

 

Welcome mate, like @LeDude83 write better go for 8gb 2060 super or if you find discounted vanilla 2070. Anyway those rtx are expensive so better buy something without compromises. You get also wider memory bus. Buy 2060 6gb only if you find some deal around 300 euro

 

Te results from my side

First my old GPU MSI GTX 1060 6gb Aero (Temp 70 C Fan 65-70%)
2019-08-01 15:15:40 - AC2-Win64-Shipping
Frames: 3191 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 53.183 - Min: 38 - Max: 86

And now from the Super upgrade Gigabyte 2070 Super Gaming OC 8gb ddr 6

Default (core 1950 mhz memory 7000mhz) (Temp 62 C Fan 40%)
2019-08-17 15:19:51 - AC2-Win64-Shipping
Frames: 6698 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 111.633 - Min: 87 - Max: 176

OC (core: 2040 mhz memory 7900mhz) (Temp 63C Fan 42%)
019-08-17 15:42:18 - AC2-Win64-Shipping
Frames: 7110 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 118.500 - Min: 92 - Max: 182

Tested on Ryzen 5 2600x 4.1 Ghz all core 1.37v water cooled 58 C by 30% Fans 880 rpm

So 2070 super is 124 % Faster than 1060 6gb

 

Clear relation between clock and FPS - matching my 2080 when it runs at standard 1860 MHz with yours at 1950. With your OC to 2040 you beat my 2080 by a few FPS. Guess mine would push 125 if I overclocked it to 2000. But TBH I won't bother - it's enough with stock clock.

But it's clear how 2070 super is an excellent value GPU for ACC.

 

This is something that might not interest most people, but personally I was interested: I did some benchmarking on Linux
Wasn't as easy and for obvious reasons I couldn't follow the given instructions since Fraps does not work in that scenario.

ACC was running using proton 4.11 with DXVK (a DX10/11 to Vulkan transformation layer) and the open source radv driver for AMD graphics cards (mesa 19.3 git). Linux kernel was 5.2.9.
I was using the mesa vulkan overlay with the options no_display=1 (to reduce the performance impact) and logging to a file instead.
Graphics settings as suggested on epic, resolution is 1920×1080.
Results:
Total time: 81.9s
Total # frames: 3788
Average: 46.3 fps
Max: 84.9 fps
Min: 14.9 fps
0.1%: 37.7 fps
0.01%: 30.3 fps

So about 10 fps lower than on Windows 7 currently, which is quite bad, tbh. I've seen much better with other games.
Maybe that'll improve over time. DCS was the same a couple of months ago and now performance is almost on par with Windows.
But the bad part is mostly that there seem to be more lag spikes, I don't know why. Need to check.

One thing that I noticed though and that I thought was very interesting was that there was almost no output lag while I do see pronounced output lag when running ACC under Windows (e.g. by moving the steering wheel).
No idea why there would be a difference.

 

Hi benchmarkers

I finally got around to putting the new method results into a fresh table. I'll have Luca update post 1, soon. But I'm giving you the table as a spoiler, right away:



@schorni as you can see - I'm matching your results with my old Vega 64. I think you're not getting the most out of the 5700 XT. Please have a look at the comment section of my result. If you adjust the settings, accordingly, I'd expect your GPU to hit 90 FPS AVG.

 

I7 6700K @4.6 Ghz, 1070 GTX 16 Go Ram @3200 Mhz

Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
4601 60000 53 126 76.683

ACC version : 1.0.7

 

Post 1 updated! I could do it myself - those forum permission issues seem to be fixed.

Was this done with the new approach?

 

Yes, sorry, I've edited the post.

you meaned the ACC version ?