Starfield [XBSX|S, PC, XGP]

For PC users:
image.png


One of our guys tested it on intel:


If you're nvidia, force Rebar on via NVinspector. Do not force AF via NVCP or you'll get reverse shadows, flicker etc
So. If I have 12 cores (3900X) - I set X to 24?
 
For PC users:
image.png


One of our guys tested it on intel:


If you're nvidia, force Rebar on via NVinspector. Do not force AF via NVCP or you'll get reverse shadows, flicker etc
FYI, if you rebuild shaders you don't get the graphics glitches when forcing AF. I have it set to override globally and I had the glitches when disabling it doing some tests. Fixed after enabling it again or rebuilding shader cache if changing the setting.
 
For PC users:
image.png


One of our guys tested it on intel:


If you're nvidia, force Rebar on via NVinspector. Do not force AF via NVCP or you'll get reverse shadows, flicker etc
Maybe it's only me, but I tried this and disabled SMT. Yes for a while staying in still FPS is about 10% higher. but testing it in my benchmark run in New Atlantis average FPS is the same as without these commands. Also disabling SMT causes long hangs and stutters, 8 threads aren't enough in New Atlantis. All 8 cores stay at 95%, P1% and P0.1% are sub 20 FPS. In my benchmark run, avg CPU usage is 67% (16 threads). The game needs more than 8 threads in New Atlantis.
 
Both those statements cant be true
16 threads benchmark shows 67% AVG CPU usage(60-65% should be the game threads). When the game is limited to 8 threads it can use only 50% of the CPU and the cores that runs the game at around 95%, probably hits 100% most of the time. What's there can not be true?
 
who can be bothered doing that

We run Ht off all the time. If you want ht on because you do rendering or production workloads you can use process lasso app and disable in os.


Everyone in our group is pretty much running heavily tuned raptor lake. Older processors will benefit from HT if you’re running out of raw power.

But really test per your own configuration with capframex and see what’s ideal for your setup.
 
A lot of it is due to what hardware you put in and the quality of the drivers.

For example, when Windows XP launched if you had an HP Printer or a NVidia graphics card or MB, there was a really good chance you were going to have serious issues due to their absolutely crappy initial drivers for XP. NV and HP generated by far the most calls to Windows support at the time. With Windows Vista NV (among other notorious hardware companies that release shit Windows launch drivers) again made for an incredibly crappy experience with their absolutely horrible initial Vista drivers.

Regards,
SB
I don’t find it much easier in any way on mac. Maybe beside some hw don’t work at all and the easier part is I cannot use it so I don’t have to worry about it😉
 
Here's a CPU heavy bench I ran that others can replicate. The instructions and samples from others are here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...NDlzA-kkpQXu6MxBxQmIi6JA-o/edit#gid=599384451

My results. Please note these are all tuned to a very high spec and the final config is a milder tune that anyone with a 13600k and ddr4 bdie can achieve with some knowhow. There's plenty of 'stock' number you can get from any tech publication so look there for those.

CPU = 13600k
GPU = 4090 FE
Mem = 2x16gb DDR4 Bdie
Mobo = Asus Z690 Strix-A D4

Config 1: 58x Pcores. 45x Ecores. 50x ring/cache. Mem 2x16gb DDR4 15/4200 tightly tuned. HT ON:

image.png


Config 2: 58x Pcores. 45x Ecores. 50x ring/cache. Mem 2x16gb DDR4 15/4200 tightly tuned. HT OFF:
image.png


Config 3: 56x Pcores. 45x Ecores. 50x ring/cache. Mem 2x16gb DDR4 15/4000 tightly tuned. HT OFF. This to show the impact of 200mhz lower clock speed and 2000mhz lower mem:

image.png
 
Ah ok wow ok. Had that confused for total threads in a CCD. So should it be 6 cores per CCD then.

The Ryzen 9 3900X consists of two CCD clusters, each with two CCX modules. Each CCX core integrates three CPU cores, yielding 12 cores overall. The Ryzen 9 3900X supports simultaneous multithreading (SMT) too, allowing it to execute up to 24 threads simultaneously.
 
Back
Top