Recently I updated my PC a bit, however the game is performing not as good as I would like it to do. I run at lower settings (textures and track LOD set to medium) but the game is giving me 30-40 fps when racing with AI. I would like to race at 50 fps at least with full grid (24-32 cars) but now it seems impossible Is there any tip what should I do? I have searched forums and I have a feeling people with similar PC setup could run it better. Also looking at minimum system requirements I should be doing better than this I guess? My PC: FX-4320 4 cores @ 4Ghz GTX 750Ti 2GB 8GB 1333Mhz RAM Windows 8.1 64bit Resolution 1366x768 Running 64bit launcher This is my favourite racing title, spend a lot of money on it but would like to enjoy it with smooth image, eny help much appreciate. The dream is I could use it with my freetrack device (I can't because it eats aditional 5 fps)
Minimum Requirements are most times for 720p/lowest settings/30fps, so you can pretty much disregard those almost always. How does it run using the 32 bit launcher?
Full Grid doesn't look doable. It's likely you could raise resolution a bit, think the CPU is the main limiter. The older AMDs don't have that great single thread perf, which matters for older games. On your hw with low settings maybe 32 bit is better.
Well, I downloaded MSI Afterburner to check usage of my hardware. I would think my CPU is a bottleneck in this situation but shouldn't it be reaching almost 100% usage? CPU usage is around 50% and GPU usage in race around 70%. So what is the limiting factor here then? Best way I can gain about 10 fps it to turn OFF shadows, and leave only contact shadows, but then I am missing some shadow play effect on tracks with lot of trees (Nord, Monza etc.) and contact shadows are flickering for some cars&track combos. I played with settins and they are not making any significant difference, I mean there is no thing in game I can shut off and get fps boost (apart from shadows off but it is also only 10-15 fps). From my point of view opponent's cars are deciding factor here, because everything is fine when I am hotlaping, then I could even use much higher graphic settings. I also created same post on Steam's forum, and one person replied when he got A8-3870k with HD7700 before, he can run medium settings, even on Nordschleife at around 60 fps. This makes me mad, because my config is slighly better that this and I am running it at half of this performance. Now he got 1050Ti: "I have an old A8-3870k with geforce 1050 ti and get 120fps, all on high, 1080p, vsync on, bla bla bla.... With full grid 60-70fps". I attached a screens below. First one is on Nordshleife 24h layout with 16 cars on grid (including me). Second one is Monza with 32 cars. Both photos made at race start, from last starting position on the grid. My graphics settings ingame + some notices: Toggle mirrors: ON Track level of detail: MEDIUM - tried low, not much difference Car LOD distance: MEDIUM Particle detail: LOW Tiremarks: ON Specular: ON Car reflection quality: LOW Track animations: ON Shadows: LOWEST - tried low, not much difference Car shadows: OFF Contact shadows: 12 Shadow split: OFF - I can't see much performance impact when it is on (I heard there should be less fps then) Multi-Sampling: 4xAA - tried lower and off, not much difference FXAA:OFF Bloom: ON Depth of field: ON Motion Blur OFF Lightshafts: ON Lens effects: ON Track texture quality: MEDIUM Car texture quality: MEDIUM Rear wiev mirror quality: LOW Shader quality: LOW Corner makers: OFF Visible cars: 24 - tried 12, not much difference Opponent cockpits: OFF Thank you for replies.
So, no suggestions what can I do to get stable gameplay on my setup with about 30 AI on track and some shadows on?
try it: Lightshafts: Off Lens effects: Off Track animations: Off Specular: Off Shader quality: med-high Car shadows: on Bloom: Off Rear wiev mirror quality: LOWest? Car texture quality: med-high Multi-Sampling: 2*AA(in driver gpu try it anti-aliasing filter- edge detect) if that does not work, reinstall the latest video card drivers. I have a system of amd with weaker characteristics, it produces 45-50 fps - ai 15-20.
I bought 750Ti 2GB mont ago because I needed card with VGA output and price under around 400PLN. Got HD 5770 1GB before and I am satisfied with my purchase. Strange it's only in RaceRoom I experience the same framerates as with old Radeon, because I see big performance boost in other games. Maybe need to do some research in driver settings then...
I'm not sure at all, just speculating, but maybe R3E uses only 2 cores (like 1 for physics and one for the rest) and so this is still your CPU that bottlenecks?
What he has should work. I have a I7 920, 2.6 and I run everything on high with a radeon 5850 vid card, which is an old vid card. I do 16 gigs of ram though which he doesn't have, on win 7.
These older AMD CPUs are no good for gaming. They have a very(!) poor single core performance and RR - like most games with not so recent engines - doesn't use all the cores. This is why you don't see 100% CPU load. 100% is when all cores are under 100% load and RR hardly uses 2 of them, if at all. The second core might even be used by the GPU driver or whatever. So 50% CPU load only means that only 2 of 4 cores are used and both of them are at maximum load. Any Intel Core i5 or i7 - also the older ones - easily outperforms an AMD FX-4320 by far in these scenarios. And although RR doesn't really need the latest in GPUs, a 750 Ti is outdated by years now and even when it was up to date, it was at the low end for a gaming GPU. Still I think the CPU is the bottleneck here rather than the GPU. So to be honest, the performance you get is about what I would expect.
A bit OT, but if I understand you correctly, this isn't quite accurate. Raceroom is DX9, and pretty much any AA setting can be driver forced. In DX10+ it's often a bit more limited, but still many settings can usually be forced, like SGSSAA.
Snoopy, have you tried setting RRE to 1080P with "auto" for the 3D settings in game? I just did a test race at Nurbs GP with 12 ai drivers and my average was 150 fps. My lowest was 137 fps and the max was 220 using the Steam FPS counter. I have a slower CPU than you, with more system RAM. I have this: i5 2500k @3,4g 16G DDR3 1666 GTX1050ti 4G
Well, I have 1366x768 18.5" monitor so this is max resolution I could set... I am afraid you are wrong, i5 2500k is much more faster and efficient than my FX. So does your graphics, then it is possible you got those frames, especially with only 12 opponents. Overall with shadows etc. it usually does not drop under 30 fps (excluding Nordshleife...) but I find 30ish a bit too low in crucial fast peace actions on track and my eyes being accomodated to 50-60 fps in other games. I came to conclusion I will turn off shadows and leave 12 contact shadows so the cars at least will not look like hoovering over the ground... This way I can get about 40 fps while being last on starting grid with about 32 cars on track. And locked 50 fps mid-race. I guess I have to bear with shadow-lacking gameplay because looks like with my CPU I cannot do better unfortunately.
I have pretty much the same hardware as you except with more ram... I get at least 60 fps and up to 100 fps and this is on triple monitors. 770gtx here. Ive fiddled with nvidia inspector etc for a long time. Make sure you got the latest drivers. Ill post up some my settings tomorrow. I7 4400ghz 12gb ram 3 benq 27 inch monitors at 60 Hz
OK... Some of you guys giving well-intentioned advice don't seem to have the slightest clue of CPUs. Any Intel Core i7 or even Core i5 is a far better CPU for gaming. An i7 with 4.4 GHz is by far not "pretty much the same". In gaming the FX-4320 is utter junk compared to this (sorry @Snoopy). And also an i5 with 3.4 GHz is waaaay better for gaming than the FX-4320. I thought the myth that a CPUs perfomance can be seen by the number of GHz printed on the box was long gone. It seems I was wrong. It's all about architecture. These old AMD FX CPUs were built with cost effectiveness in mind. And yes, the multi-core-performance of these CPUs was cheaper than the multi-core-performance of Intel CPUs. That doesn't even mean they were faster than Intel CPUs when the same number of cores were used, only the bang-for-buck-ratio was a lot better. And some of them had quite a big number of cores (upto 8 or even 12 I think). The FX cores had a simple architecture that could be clocked quite high but they were so bad that even the high clocks didn't give them an edge against Intel CPUs. If all the many cores of the high end AMD FX CPUs had been used, they might be able to compete with the Intel CPUs but there is barely any software apart from generic benchmarks that uses so many cores, let alone games. One single core of the FX-4320 compared to a single core of any Intel i5/7 CPU is by far inferior. And now guess how many cores RR uses? The new Ryzen is the first CPU from AMD for years that can be an alternative to Intel CPUs for gaming purposes. All the better ones of the FX CPUs before might have been acceptable if the game didn't make use of CPU calculations a lot. But we are talking about simracing here. Lots of complex calculations regarding physics and AI need to be made.
Yes, I understand it all. Unfortunately I am stuck in AM3+ socket and FX processors. Buying a new mobo with intel CPU is out of my range and sense until I decide to buy whole new PC. That is true, single core efficiency is crap in this CPUs, you cleared my mind in this department. However this is obvoius while this CPU costs 60 euro (new).
Sorry must have misinterpreted. I thought you had Intel core.. anything to do with shadows turn off and lower everythng as low as possible to see what u get.. then adjust them up a bit.. you might just have to lower the expectations for the game.
no it's the same online many cars cause FPS drops. AMD CPU are bad. i switch my FX4300 @4.6GHZfor a FX8320E @4.1Ghz and i have the same FPS...