[computerbase] Project CARS benchmarks

[Alatar]

Since no one had made one of these before (and I don't want the OT discussion to ruin other threads) and since we now have a pretty detailed performance review of pCARS I thought a thread would be a good thing to have.

1080p: http://i.imgur.com/ckzAdvt.png

4K: http://i.imgur.com/GrVZe4T.png

AA perf: http://i.imgur.com/unxk5eU.png

computerbase also has CPU perf, AMD driver comparisons (win 10 ones seem to give at least some boost) as well as frame times.

Some other reviews:

gamegpu
pcghw.de
pclab.pl

And according to Roy on twitter AMD is now working on the developers: https://twitter.com/amd_roy/status/596361439016685569

Great chat with Ian, we love @projectcarsgame and are working with them now. Update to follow shortly, rest assured AMD on Project Cars.

while apparently Ian Bell, one of the head people at slightly mad gave these comments: http://steamcommunity.com/app/234630/discussions/0/613957600528900678/

We've provided AMD with 20 keys for game testing as they work on the driver side.

But you only have to look at the lesser hardware in the consoles to see how optimised we are on AMD based chips.

What can I say but he should take better stock of what's happening in his company. We're reaching out to AMD with all of our efforts. We've provided them 20 keys as I say. They were invited to work with us for years.

Looking through company mails the last I can see they (AMD) talked to us was October of last year.

Categorically, Nvidia have not paid us a penny. They have though been very forthcoming with support and co-marketing work at their instigation.

We've had emails back and forth with them yesterday also. I reiterate that this is mainly a driver issue but we'll obviously do anything we can from our side.

 

[moonbogg]

Looks like a massive CPU bottleneck or something. Is this game released yet?

 

[Alatar]

Looks like a massive CPU bottleneck or something. Is this game released yet?

Yes, was released on the 7th.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Yes, was released on the 7th.

Not in North America, we have to wait until Next week.

 

[Alatar]

I would be really interested in seeing in depth analysis of the differences between clear weather / rain and solo driving / racing against AIs. Also motion blur analysis.

Not in North America, we have to wait until Next week.

The digital downloads for NA should have been up on the 7th according to wiki. But I'm in the EU (and been playing the game since pre-alpha) so what do I know

 

[96Firebird]

Not in North America, we have to wait until Next week.

For console the NA release date is next week, for PC gamers it is available now.

 

[moonbogg]

I read you can't play with a game pad without spinning out. Kind of a bummer.

 

[RussianSensation]

This game is a total mess when it comes to optimization, even when it comes to NV's hardware.

1. Titan X OC is barely faster than 980 OC. Only 13% faster in the 2nd graph but the Titan X has 50% more shaders, textures and ROPs. That means there is some major bottleneck in the game engine because the game scales well from 970 OC to 980 OC but then the performance increase falls off a cliff for the Titan X OC. Regardless of where Kepler and GCN sit, this right away jumps out that the game engine is broken unless this game is 100% CPU limited with the Titan X.

2. Kepler's performance makes no sense either. 780Ti is only 9% faster in the top graph and less than 4% faster in the 2nd graph compared to a stock 780. Even if we consider that in the 2nd bench the game could possibly need 4GB of VRAM, the first graph doesn't explain how 780Ti barely beats a 780. 980 OC is also 62% faster than 780Ti in the 2nd graph and even in the 1st graph 970 and 980 are so far ahead of 780Ti, it's not logical. No other game shows such gross engine optimization that favours Maxwell over Kepler.

3. Performance increase between 280X and 290/290X also makes little sense here. The performance delta between 290 and 290X highlights that with current AMD drivers, and the current state of this game's engine, there is practically little to no scaling with extra TMUs or shaders for GCN 1.1 architecture. But since the game also hardly scales from 280X vs. a 290X, it means it's not sensitive to geometry, memory bandwidth or ROPs on the AMD side. What an illogical mess. Perhaps since the drivers is MIA, the GPU usage is in the 50-60% here which means all those extra shaders, TMUs, ROPs are sitting idle. That would explain a lot.

Looks like this game will need a lot of patching and AMD will have a lot of work to do to boost performance 50-75%. NV needs to work on optimizing Kepler drivers for this game too as its performance is also whacked.

P.S. Computerbase, what in the world are you doing comparing stock Kepler cards against overclocked 290/290X and overclocked Maxwell? That has got to be the most failed methodology I've ever seen from that site. This is 100% unfair to Kepler cards. If this is the future direction of Computerbase, this is like paid advertisement to sell new cards by gimping last gen cards by leaving them in stock states to show newer gen in better light --> i.e., enticing gamers to ditch their old gen cards by exaggerating the differences with newer gens.

 

[SPBHM]

after seeing the performance analysis from the consoles version on Digital Foundry, I have to say, the optimization for the consoles is excellent, the PC optimization with AMD hardware is horrible.

 

[Subyman]

Playing devils advocate, those textures could have been a thank you for nvidia being eager and easy to work with. He said he tried to reach out to AMD since the beginning to no avail. It is no wonder the game runs better on nvidia. From what I'e seen, I don't blame either nvidia or the dev. A dev can only do so much with documentation, direct support is always beneficial.

 

[Hitman928]

after seeing the performance analysis from the consoles version on Digital Foundry, I have to say, the optimization for the consoles is excellent, the PC optimization with AMD hardware is horrible.

Good to hear the consoles are working well. Some are reporting up to 50% increase in fps on AMD cards in Windows 10 with the beta driver there, so hopefully it's a quick fix for AMD.

 

[RussianSensation]

as for Nvidia not giving them money, that's amazing, even the consoles version is full of Nvidia logos everywhere, if Nvidia can get this kind of exposure without paying them, just.. wow

There could be all kinds of non-monetary benefits. NV might advertise this game for free on behalf of the developer at some point in the future. NV could have given the entire development team free Maxwell GPU hardware when optimizing the game which reduced the development costs. NV might have sent computer programmers that fixed major parts of the game engine that were an even more broken mess before NV's programming help. Technically his statement may be true that NV never paid them $1 as far as money transfers go.

after seeing the performance analysis from the consoles version on Digital Foundry, I have to say, the optimization for the consoles is excellent, the PC optimization with AMD hardware is horrible.

It's certainly eye opening when a game runs well on XB1/PS4 with such outdated GCN hardware but it bombs on a 780Ti and R9 290X in light rain. :hmm:

Interesting to see what the performance is like without 4xMSAA. In the last 4 years we've seen performance tank by 50-100% with MSAA on. It's not like the old days where MSAA resulted in a 10-25% performance hit.

The IQ of SMAA on shadows is far superior to MSAA in this game.

Just compare the shadow in the middle of the track:

SMAA

MSAA

We need a performance review with SMAA vs. MSAA and more comparisons to see if MSAA even makes sense in this game. With today's gaming engines, MSAA is more or less 100% driver dependent. Even in GTA V, MSAA destroys performance to the point where R9 290X and the 980 are 'equally' slow.

I wonder how much of that performance advantage Maxwell has over Kepler and GCN in Project CARS when MSAA is enabled is down to the driver....

 

[RussianSensation]

From what I'e seen, I don't blame either nvidia or the dev. A dev can only do so much with documentation, direct support is always beneficial.

There are certain things about this game that do point to some unusual discrepancies:

"Firstly, Xbox One still retains a curious advantage in texture filtering, where static screens show PS4's roads blurring over at a closer proximity. Added to that we also see the same motion blur effect on PS4 as before, with moving objects producing an unusual banding behind them - while Xbox One's blur is more refined." IIRC, PS4's GPU has at least a 50% advantage over XB1's when it comes to texture filtering performance.

Remember how weak the GPU and CPUs are in the XB1 and PS4?

"A frame-rate analysis of Project Cars' career mode. With races capped at 20 cars, both PlayStation 4 and Xbox One mostly hold 60fps in dry weather, though dips to the mid-40s are apparent when rain effects are introduced." <-- Based on this, you would think they have a Core i7 and GTX980 inside. :biggrin:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-project-cars-launch-performance-analysis

Either way, I am glad we are finally getting a next gen PC racing game. Hopefully via driver updates and game patches, performance picks up on the PC over time.

Game is also filled with Coca Cola, DHL, random car company adverts. I doubt those paid for the banners either.

No, NV's payment is just shady mafioso programmers visiting your studio :biggrin:

I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure you are not allowed to include any copyrights or trademarks into a medium and sell it. You can't just put Coca Cola, DHL and any other company logos into a game today without permission because you could be financially benefiting by using the brand power of these brands. I am pretty sure I can't just make a painting with Coca Cola or Mickey Mouse and try to sell it as that is intellectually property/trademark that belongs to someone else. Ask yourself what benefit from Slightly Mad Studios have for putting NV's game logos instead of say Ferrari or Lamborghini or Porsche? There has to be a reason NV's logos are in the game, it's not some kind of charity work to provide free advertising to a random firm. NV obviously helped them with game development in return for this advertising if the developer insists they got no money directly from NV.

 

[ZGR]

There's probably a specific in game setting that doesn't play well with AMD GPU's. This game appears to have really good gamepad support including deadzone adjustments so it looks go be a solid racing game. Kinda bummed at how dreary some of tracks look.

Nürburgring doesn't have any of the road artwork that competing console racing games have and the tree shadows look pretty strange.

 

[96Firebird]

Did the developer forget to check the "sabotage AMD GPUs" checkbox for the game when running Windows 10? Someone should inform them...

Or, just maybe, call me crazy, the AMD drivers for Win10 have the Project CARS optimizations that are missing from the latest Win8.1 and below drivers...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XzFe5OOHZko

 

[RussianSensation]

Or, just maybe, call me crazy, the AMD drivers for Win10 have the Project CARS optimizations that are missing from the latest Win8.1 and below drivers...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XzFe5OOHZko

This video shows even more dramatic differences of 40-50%

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U3h3QfsRho&feature=youtu.be

Still, if you look back at my comments earlier, the game engine has weird issues for sure:

1. Titan X OC barely scales against 980 OC. The worst scaling I've ever seen.
2. 780Ti barely scaled over 780 and 970 blows 780Ti away, with 980 > 60% faster in one of their benches.

It is true that AMD's drivers are not optimized for this title under W8.1, but this game is also messed up as it heavily favours Maxwell over all other GPU architectures. As far as I know there is nothing that special in Maxwell that would make it that much faster than Kepler when we are comparing 970/980 vs. a 780Ti. Not to mention in some places the textures are of higher quality on XB1 vs. PS4, which should be impossible! :biggrin:

 

[Dribble]

This GW nvidia sabotage is just a crutch - too many trying to play AMD as some virtuous victim. The truth is almost certainly the dev reached out to both, in response nvidia provided support and AMD didn't. In my personal experience this happens in professional software as well, nothing to do with games.

It's a side effect of nvidia having a big well funded dev support team, and AMD having hardly anyone after all those cutbacks. Even before the cutbacks AMD were rubbish at software - as a company they were used to x86 where they could just piggy back on work done by Intel and MS. Hence AMD's apu's fail to get traction, they can't get anywhere in gpu compute, the professional market mostly ignores them and they keep coming up short in games. They just don't provide the necessary software support to make their hardware work.

 

[Erenhardt]

This GW nvidia sabotage is just a crutch - too many trying to play AMD as some virtuous victim. The truth is almost certainly the dev reached out to both, in response nvidia provided support and AMD didn't. In my personal experience this happens in professional software as well, nothing to do with games.

It's a side effect of nvidia having a big well funded dev support team, and AMD having hardly anyone after all those cutbacks. Even before the cutbacks AMD were rubbish at software - as a company they were used to x86 where they could just piggy back on work done by Intel and MS. Hence AMD's apu's fail to get traction, they can't get anywhere in gpu compute, the professional market mostly ignores them and they keep coming up short in games. They just don't provide the necessary software support to make their hardware work.

AMD cant provide support for something that is locked from them. They have no access to GW code, nor devs can share code with them.

You should not generalize games to Gameworks game only.

 

[iiiankiii]

This GW nvidia sabotage is just a crutch - too many trying to play AMD as some virtuous victim. The truth is almost certainly the dev reached out to both, in response nvidia provided support and AMD didn't. In my personal experience this happens in professional software as well, nothing to do with games.

It's a side effect of nvidia having a big well funded dev support team, and AMD having hardly anyone after all those cutbacks. Even before the cutbacks AMD were rubbish at software - as a company they were used to x86 where they could just piggy back on work done by Intel and MS. Hence AMD's apu's fail to get traction, they can't get anywhere in gpu compute, the professional market mostly ignores them and they keep coming up short in games. They just don't provide the necessary software support to make their hardware work.

What you're saying is true. Nvidia is definitely help out. But, one problem. Do you know what GameWorks is? If you don't. It's simple, GameWorks is Nvidia's closed API designed to optimize their GPUs. Even if AMD wanted to optimize the game, that closed black box (GameWorks) would prevent AMD from optimizing the code. Nvidia has the source code to optimize for their cards. AMD does not because GameWorks is CLOSED SOURCE. Thus, it becomes a form of sabotage.

 

[Silverforce11]

That the game run flawless on console hardware ..

Cos there's no GAMEWORKS on consoles. gg.

 

[dacostafilipe]

That the game run flawless on console hardware where AMD doesnt have anything to mess up in terms of software and support shows where the problem is if it wasnt obviously enough from the different PC drivers.

Autch!

As far as we know, officialy the only GameWorks components that work on consoles are WaveWorks (because it's DirectCompute and not CUDA) and PhysX (because it runs on CPU).

The game runs well on console because they don't use GW ...

 

[ShintaiDK]

Autch!

As far as we know, officialy the only GameWorks components that work on consoles are WaveWorks (because it's DirectCompute and not CUDA) and PhysX (because it runs on CPU).

The game runs well on console because they don't use GW ...

Now tell me about the massive difference between AMD drivers. Is that also GWs fault? For some reason with AMD, its always someone else fault.

And its quite clear from Roys response that they was caught sleeping or simply had prioritised elsewhere.

 

[3DVagabond]

Now tell me about the massive difference between AMD drivers. Is that also GWs fault? For some reason with AMD, its always someone else fault.

And its quite clear from Roys response that they was caught sleeping or simply had prioritised elsewhere.

Why? Because he said they had work to do instead of claiming it was a feature?

 

[Erenhardt]

Now tell me about the massive difference between AMD drivers. Is that also GWs fault? For some reason with AMD, its always someone else fault.

And its quite clear from Roys response that they was caught sleeping or simply had prioritised elsewhere.

GameWorks failed to recognize amd beta win10 drivers as amd driver and didn't execute amd performance shader paths.

 

[ShintaiDK]

GameWorks failed to recognize amd beta win10 drivers as amd driver and didn't execute amd performance shader paths.

I assume you got some edvidence? Or is it just some homemade story?

You should get AMD to publish this info since they would love it. Its also anticompetitive in legal terms. Both would benefit AMD quite well if true.

But maybe its not the case when real world kicks in?