[computerbase] Project CARS benchmarks

[Silverforce11]

It runs on CPU also for Nvidia users. It's not the first game out with CPU Physx, so what is the deal here? The 600 calculations per second thing is unrelated to Physx since it is used only for collisions. SMS is using their own physics engine for the tires and suspension physics on cars.

Stop speaking rubbish, its on the SMS forum, its a backer's game where testers get access to the devs. They know about the PhysX problem for years, it hammers the CPU on AMD but gets GPU accelerated on NV.

That's the ONLY reason a lowly gtx660 is spanking a R290X.

No other GameWorks title even has such a large performance gap. This one is the worse and its PhysX rearing its ugly head.

This kind of result is what we used to get in TWIMTBP games with GPU PhysX, if you enable it on AMD and did a benchmark, it would result in a slideshow. Now CPUs have gotten so much faster, instead of a slideshow, you get 20-40 fps at best.

The reason it was never fixed even when their alpha backers told them is because it CAN'T be fixed. They built their entire game around PhysX.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It all makes so much sense now:

"The game runs PhysX version 3.2.4.1. It is a CPU based PhysX. Some features of it can be offloaded onto Nvidia GPUs. Naturally AMD can't do this.

In Project Cars, PhysX is the main component that the game engine is built around. There is no "On / Off" switch as it is integrated into every calculation that the game engine performs. It does 600 calculations per second to create the best feeling of control in the game. The grip of the tires is determined by the amount of tire patch on the road. So it matters if your car is leaning going into a curve as you will have less tire patch on the ground and subsequently spin out. Most of the other racers on the market have much less robust physics engines."

The devs built their game engine around PhysX, which on NV GPUs, can be offloaded from CPU -> GPU. But on AMD that cannot happen, and the CPU is hammered.

Way too sneaky, making people think AMD has bad drivers that can't handle "draw calls". DRAW CALLS. lol

Theres no goddamn way a game such as that gets 1M draw calls per second to flood AMD's driver. It's running PhysX simulation on CPU for AMD vs CPU + GPU on NV.

The devs fully know what the problem is, as I stated, they knew from alpha feedback that it ran poorly on AMD. They did not care, cannot be fixed because PhysX cannot be GPU accelerated on AMD. Instead, they blame AMD drivers. What a bunch of un-ethical pricks.

I think you passed way over in tinfoil country.

Whats your view on the large performance difference within AMD depending on driver version and power setting? Pretty much contradicts your entire post.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Stop speaking rubbish, its on the SMS forum, its a backer's game where testers get access to the devs. They know about the PhysX problem for years, it hammers the CPU on AMD but gets GPU accelerated on NV.

That's the ONLY reason a lowly gtx660 is spanking a R290X.

No other GameWorks title even has such a large performance gap. This one is the worse and its PhysX rearing its ugly head.

This kind of result is what we used to get in TWIMTBP games with GPU PhysX, if you enable it on AMD and did a benchmark, it would result in a slideshow. Now CPUs have gotten so much faster, instead of a slideshow, you get 20-40 fps at best.

The reason it was never fixed even when their alpha backers told them is because it CAN'T be fixed. They built their entire game around PhysX.

Doubt it, all functional physX things have always run on the cpu, even on nvidia equipped systems.

gpu physx is about cloth, particles, volumetric smoke and other frivolous eyecandy.

Anyway, you can turn off physx gpu acceleration in the nvidia control panel so it should be easily tested.

 

[Silverforce11]

I think you passed way over in tinfoil country.

Whats your view on the large performance difference within AMD depending on driver version and power setting? Pretty much contradicts your entire post.

My view? It's obvious, you can read the Win10 preview, the DX12 version also has enhanced DX11 with less overhead (read the latest Eurogamer preview).

So you have on AMD GPU, the CPU is hammered with PhysX, with the normal overhead, it struggles at 20-40 fps. On Win10, with reduced overhead, its less CPU dependent so that while PhysX is hammering it, the GPU can still function better. It's quite obvious given what the developers are saying on their forums, coming straight from the software engineer re their integration of PhysX.

NV fully knows their GPUs can accelerate PhysX, it won't hurt them one bit and thus on Win10 it won't make any difference because its never CPU bottlenecked due to PhysX offloading to the GPU.

 

[Silverforce11]

Doubt it, all functional physX things have always run on the cpu, even on nvidia equipped systems.

gpu physx is about cloth, particles, volumetric smoke and other frivolous eyecandy.

Anyway, you can turn off physx gpu acceleration in the nvidia control panel so it should be easily tested.

"The game runs PhysX version 3.2.4.1. It is a CPU based PhysX. Some features of it can be offloaded onto Nvidia GPUs."

Some features. Not all. You can look into the SDK documentation.

This game is like running TWIMTBP games with PhysX effects on for AMD. Hammertime on the CPU.

 

[mikk]

It all makes so much sense now:

"The game runs PhysX version 3.2.4.1. It is a CPU based PhysX. Some features of it can be offloaded onto Nvidia GPUs. Naturally AMD can't do this.

In Project Cars, PhysX is the main component that the game engine is built around. There is no "On / Off" switch as it is integrated into every calculation that the game engine performs. It does 600 calculations per second to create the best feeling of control in the game. The grip of the tires is determined by the amount of tire patch on the road. So it matters if your car is leaning going into a curve as you will have less tire patch on the ground and subsequently spin out. Most of the other racers on the market have much less robust physics engines."

The devs built their game engine around PhysX, which on NV GPUs, can be offloaded from CPU -> GPU. But on AMD that cannot happen, and the CPU is hammered.

This is purely nonsense. Physx is CPU only on all platforms in pcars. You could also disable GPU Physx in the Nvidia control panel, don't be surprised if you can't notice any fps differences. Imagine if it would run on GPU for Nvidia, don't you think there would have been a GPU fps slowdown (like in all other GPU Physx Features from other games) if they would offload some Features onto GPU? Not to mention that on PS4 and Xbox they wouldn't be able to do it and it runs much better there with slow Jaguar cores (because of the low level API= they don't have to deal with AMDs crappy directx11 drivers there). As I said, Physx is used only for collisions. This is not the deal since CPU load comes from the tire physics or suspension model.

 

[mikk]

Stop speaking rubbish, its on the SMS forum, its a backer's game where testers get access to the devs. They know about the PhysX problem for years, it hammers the CPU on AMD but gets GPU accelerated on NV.

Once again you are talking some nonsense. This is a blatant lie.

 

[Silverforce11]

This is purely nonsense. Physx is CPU only on all platforms in pcars. You could also disable GPU Physx in the Nvidia control panel, don't be surprised if you can't notice any fps differences. Imagine if it would run on GPU for Nvidia, don't you think there would have been a GPU fps slowdown (like in all other GPU Physx Features from other games) if they would offload some Features onto GPU? Not to mention that on PS4 and Xbox they wouldn't be able to do it and it runs much better there with slow Jaguar cores (because of the low level API= they don't have to deal with AMDs crappy directx11 drivers there). As I said, Physx is used only for collisions. This is not the deal since CPU load comes from the tire physics or suspension model.

It's also bugged as heck on consoles, didn't you pay attention? The devs are banning negative reviews. People are complaining its like an arcade game, the physics is broken.

The game runs at a very high fps on low end NV GPUs, that tells me it isn't demanding to start with. Just artificially crippled on AMD.

Also, if you think AMD drivers blow donkey on overhead and is the cause of the GPU bottleneck, find me a neutral game that shows it.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Yeah, just seems the more I read about this game, it seems to be a mess (mind you not an absolute garbage game).

With so much hype following this game, many skeletons are going to be falling out of closest mostly because it was a kickstarter game. And peeps on kickstarters want answers! Haha.

Welps, I've done my morning readings off to do something constructive. Do hope they can fix what seems to be CPU issues on the AMD side. Turning off some of the PhysX options seems to alleviate a lot of the issues. Par for course, though.

I played a build of this game a couple years back and didn't think it would ever be finished as a full game. Here it is and it still doesn't appear finished. I like racing games, I'm not hardcore but I do enjoy being able to take a car I will never touch around the track at high speed. I thought graphically this game was a step above and it might be still but the game itself just seems to have issues that shouldn't be there. Even with Nvidia cards that can run the game well there are other things that seem half finished and turn me away from this title.

 

[Erenhardt]

LOL.
AMD should improve Physx CPU code in GW locked libraries via driver update?

Some people here need their heads checked.

Also, I played it on different driver versions and didn't notice any difference (win8.1)

Im sure nvidia made extra effort to optimize a code patch that runs on CPU when no nv gpu is detected

 

[cmdrdredd]

It's also bugged as heck on consoles, didn't you pay attention? The devs are banning negative reviews. People are complaining its like an arcade game, the physics is broken.

The game runs at a very high fps on low end NV GPUs, that tells me it isn't demanding to start with. Just artificially crippled on AMD.

Also, if you think AMD drivers blow donkey on overhead and is the cause of the GPU bottleneck, find me a neutral game that shows it.

Find a game that Nvidia didn't optimize for and I'll show you low performance too. This is simply one game that AMD can polish up a driver for.

I'll repost this link to Hardforums that show driver 15.2 outperforming 15.4 by a bit. Not a huge margin but clearly something changed.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041593400&postcount=60

 

[Flapdrol1337]

"The game runs PhysX version 3.2.4.1. It is a CPU based PhysX. Some features of it can be offloaded onto Nvidia GPUs."

Some features. Not all. You can look into the SDK documentation.

This game is like running TWIMTBP games with PhysX effects on for AMD. Hammertime on the CPU.

If physx was the problem it would run at 10 fps on the console cpu's.

 

[Erenhardt]

If physx was the problem it would run at 10 fps on the console cpu's.

Are there any games on consoles that run physx?

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Are there any games on consoles that run physx?

Yes, doesn't use gpu acceleration though, but on the ps3 it uses the cell.

On the consoles you probably have to pay for it though. On the pc it's supposedly free as long as you put the logo in the splash screen or something. Most devs don't bother with the gpu effects, just use cpu physx like in arma or trine.

 

[Hitman928]

I played a build of this game a couple years back and didn't think it would ever be finished as a full game. Here it is and it still doesn't appear finished. I like racing games, I'm not hardcore but I do enjoy being able to take a car I will never touch around the track at high speed. I thought graphically this game was a step above and it might be still but the game itself just seems to have issues that shouldn't be there. Even with Nvidia cards that can run the game well there are other things that seem half finished and turn me away from this title.

http://www.gamespot.com/project-cars-review/

Unfortunately, I’ve also hit a number of incredibly frustrating bugs throughout my play time. I’ve had dominating first place wins taken away from me as, suddenly and without warning, Project CARS becomes convinced that I’m in last, not first place. On the other end of the spectrum, I’ve had races in which the passive AI seems eager to lose, giving me a massive 10+ second lead on second place. And more than once, it’s been unclear if my wins have been correctly recorded by the career mode: I’ve come in first place across each section of a three-part event only to see the post-race headline read that I came in second. Hopefully I won’t run into more of these annoyances as I continue to play, because they can really ruin a good time.

As far as the AMD performance goes, who was it that said that AMD stopped communicating with them since October of last year? Was that not one of the developers? Was it just a forum post because now it seems that there's been lots of communication according to the latest posts. I would be surprised if physx is the problem in this case, I don't think it uses any of the more advanced physx that should cause such a big disparity, but I guess it would be worth looking into.

 

[cmdrdredd]

In the PC Games section someone said the trees look two dimensional like cardboard, in replays the cars don't look connected to the road(floaty?), and the smoke is flat. The screenshots look good but I can't say that I ever saw smoke effects or trees in the screenshots. Something like this shouldn't have low performance at all.

 

[Hitman928]

From a forum at [H], a poster apparently is a backer of the game and has been testing builds for quite a while, I don't know the poster but here is what he said his experience was:

For about a month after I personally requested a driver from AMD, there was new driver and a partial fix to the problem. Then Nvidia requested that a ton of more PhysX effects be added, GameWorks was updated, and that was that... But maybe AMD can pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one too. I certainly hope so.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1861353&page=4

 

[railven]

This is not complete or I should say outdated.





Not sure why are you confused here. These scores have nothing to do with each other. Different CPU/track/weather/car/visual options may result in different fps scores, especially in this case from different people.

Actually, if you read the two parts I put from the two forum posts Sontin linked. You'd find Sontin conveniently left out two important things.

The first post Dev says "it seems to be a calculation issue." [paraphrase]

Second post forum user posts his settings, and if you actually read them he turned off weather effects and reduced the number of cars (ie reducing calculations). Which would reduce CPU overhead. And his FPS was almost double of what was reported in the OP.

It's clearly a CPU/PhysX issues. If someone here has this game and a GeForce, give it a whirl. Disable GPU offloading for PhysX. I'd give it a try but I'm not buying this game for the other reasons (devs basically ignored their community for years).

 

[monstercameron]

The culprit is physx, yet the dev has the audacity to blame amd -admittedly feeble- drivers... Ever the scapegoat.

 

[railven]

The culprit is physx, yet the dev has the audacity to blame amd -admittedly feeble- drivers... Ever the scapegoat.

I wouldn't say they are flat out putting the blame on AMD. They are addressing the core of the issue - bloatware PhysX. Unfortunately, they can't really recommend anything at this point. They definitely won't say "don't buy our product" and they aren't taking sides going "buy nVidia".

It seems their eagerness to work NV is just biting them in the ass. Hopefully this is a eye opener for other devs.



As for someone asking about consoles. Well, they use lower settings than what PC users would touch and I find it interesting that the GPU on a console even with the anemic CPU is pushing 30-40 FPS in heavy rain. But it seems those are the exact settings even the devs are recommend AMD users for the mean time.

Drop as much CPU load as you can. That PhysX is crushing it!

The best advice I can give while we work with AMD is to reduce settings which influence CPU load. Specifically in this order:

Shadow Detail -> Medium
Reflections -> Medium
Environment Map-> Medium
Car Detail -> Medium or High

 

[Erenhardt]

Not much can be done then.
Gameworks can't be altered by devs. Amd gamers are at the mercy of nvidia:twisted:

Double-layer underground ocean anyone?

 

[Flapdrol1337]

If someone here has this game and a GeForce, give it a whirl. Disable GPU offloading for PhysX. I'd give it a try but I'm not buying this game for the other reasons (devs basically ignored their community for years).

Yeah, would like to see this too.

 

[Hitman928]

It seems the developers bit off more than they could chew, regarding the controller issues:

source

Physics bug example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=288P5aswTwo

Other websites reporting more control/physics issues as well as the game not tracking race results accurately. I'd say this game is probably a wait for the patches type of thing if you haven't already bought in as a backer.

 

[Vaporizer]

It is really awful if you are a baker and lateron the devs devide to incorporate this Gameworks things. Would it be possible to withdraw the money? Because the money was paid to develop a game and not to include this GW stuff that principally excludes all bakers on AMD cards from gaming. I hope the devs will get what they deserve.

 

[Alatar]

LOL.
AMD should improve Physx CPU code in GW locked libraries via driver update?

Some people here need their heads checked.

Also, I played it on different driver versions and didn't notice any difference (win8.1)

Im sure nvidia made extra effort to optimize a code patch that runs on CPU when no nv gpu is detected

FYI:

Nvidia has put the full source for PhysX 3.3.3 and its clothing and destruction components on GitHub.

The release appears to be related to Unreal Engine 4's recent liberation. PhysX powers Unreal's "core game physics," according to Epic co-founder and programming guru Tim Sweeney, and the code is accessible via the engine's repository. Interestingly, Sweeney says Nvidia is providing the "CPU-based implementation" of PhysX. GPU-specific source may remain under wraps.

Nvidia will be accepting changes to the code, Sweeney adds, and it may roll modifications into the "main PhysX branch."

http://techreport.com/news/27910/nvidia-physx-joins-the-free-source-party

You have to make an account and accept an EULA but it's not like AMD can't see PhysX source if they really want to....