Your performance testing results

I get around 30 fps on gridmap with all settings except dynamic reflections up, and 15-20 fps on the more "natural" maps, and framerate only starts to drop when I put in a fourth car.
I'm running an i7-4510u, an nvidia 840m graphics card, and only 4gb of RAM.
yes, I use a laptop, and sadly, I can't put in more RAM.

 

You really need to lower details when playing with the laptop. I'm interested though, how your laptop would do with standard test settings which are described in first post?

I thought to test throwing three cement mixers down the Cliff map, those impacts bring FPS down for very short time, but such fast events don't really show up too well with 1000ms polling rate, however dips in GPU usage tell about them. Min 62, Avg 75, Max 87, but cliff is so random that variation in FPS is quite great which means it would take lot of runs to get statistically valid mean. What this shows is how good BeamNG actually is already, more vehicles is not really causing massive slowdowns.


Update: What I try to initiate here is a thought that perhaps how many vehicles one can run is already bit old fashioned? It used to be big thing, but now with 4 core hyperthreading CPU we can already run 6-7 vehicles without much of any slowdown.
Where we have bigger performance issues is maps even when running single vehicle.

 

Car Jump Arena, just a ramp/jump for now, but what is interesting this has bit higher CPU usage than some other maps.
Min 85 Avg 93 Max 110 GPU limited whole time as GPU load is 99-100% as can be seen:

 

I have a small room, so my room once got to 28c (with like 3 laptops windows updating) whilst playing BeamNG with 4 cars. Also I noticed that with 4 cars on screen at once the GPU load goes up quite a bit for me I think

 

Will you accept 1600x1200? 1080p has roughly 5% more pixels, so it is close.

 

Your performance testing results, so it doesn't matter if you run it at 4k or 256x256! As long as you tell us...

 

OP said he wants the tests to be the most similar as possible with his.

 

wow im really proud of the results of my benchmark! i did not expect something this good!

 

Thing is, with different settings and map etc. It does not tell much at all, because different maps vary a lot in performance and especially what limits the performance.

For data to be useful for guys looking for upgrades, data collected should be as close as possible with same settings. Best would be if everyone could take Hwinfo log with 1000ms polling interval and drive exact same route at exact same speeds, but that is quite impossible.

Resolution has huge impact sometimes, it can affect a lot about what is limiting factor in system, sometimes if resolution change does not change FPS a lot, then it might tell that CPU is limiting performance instead of GPU, but that is why instructions state having some way of monitoring GPU usage and seeing if it dips below 98-100% so it is possible to get some idea what is limiting factor.

@Nissan Skyline, it would be best if you could use 1080p, but if your system can't do that, then I guess you have to do what your system can do. I will put only results with exactly same settings to 1st post so we can be sure they could be comparable and thus useful to new guys and those looking for upgrades.

 

Looks like your 6700 is being bottlenecked. Get a 1060.

 

Normally I use 720p, which I can have at high at 60fps not dropping below, performance testing I just do 1080p as most probably uses that resolution.

For me 1060 would be waste of money, only places where I get below 60fps at 720p would need faster CPU, but there really is not faster and probably issue is more in code than in hardware.

But if I would play at 1080p RX 480 would be where I would invest over 1060 as 480 would be 100 cheaper at least here and perform better.

Update: New FPS chart for Russian road, CPU is having hard time there, but manages to keep GPU fed, so for some maps you just need bit more CPU than for others:

 

Upgrade time!!! New benchmarks within a week or so

 

But the 9370 is 1670 more than a 7700!
Edit: Out of sheer curiosity, what motherboard, cooling solution, and PSU do you have for the 9370?

 

Haha, I have a technically incompatible FX990 Extreme 3 from AsRock, and a Hyper TX3 from CoolerMaster (aircooler). This setup was REALLY not ideal for the FX-9370 but you gotta work with what you have

 

This is just for laughs, but shows how Vanilla maps can be made to run with very little hardware if needed.

East Coast USA 720p with Lowest settings using Integrated GPU, Min 58, AVG 73, Max 91


I think that is really awesome result.

Update:
So I decided to do standardized test on Intel HD graphics 530 (iGPU) of i7 6700.

Hirochi Raceway Min 7 Avg 9.4 Max 11 FPS Compare that to GTX 1050 Ti which gets MIN 66, AVG 75, MAX 92 on same settings, that is 8 times faster on average FPS.

FPS Chart for iGPU

If you are willing to sacrifice visual quality, you can play with i3 (i7-6700 or i3-6100 are pretty much equal with single vehicle) without graphics card, but there it is how much cheap budget gaming graphics card improves framerate.

If I would have a killer GPU I would test that too, but I don't have, so one has to guess what kind of performance improvement there would be.

 

Even with V-sync off, and the FPS limiter off, here's my results:
Max FPS: 60
Min FPS: 59
Avg FPS: 59.5
My GPU leveled off at 54c and about 95% usage all the time.

My rig:
CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 @3.00 GHz with the stock cooler :/ (My parents don't pay me for chores so I only have a nickel)
GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 950 SSC ACX 2.0 (Quite overclocked though)
RAM: 16GB DDR3 1600MHz (also overclocked)
Motherboard: MSI Z97 GAMING 5
(All of this running on a 430W PSU, actually)
--- Post updated ---

However, like I used to be, most people who only have an iGPU also have a crappy processor (I used to have a Pentium E6300 dual-core with integrated graphics, since then I have built a new one from scratch)

 

I tested Hirochi raceway with 0.9.1, Min 65 (-1), Avg 75, Max 91 (-1), no statistically meaningful change in direction or another, zero performance gain, zero performance loss, 0.8 is equal with single car.

This was to be excepted as physics has not been limiting performance in 0.8, except for perhaps minimum system required.

 

I finally manged to record some game play footage , 3 videos exactly. I will post one of the videos some time later but here is a little screenshot from the recording

This doesn't show much but meh
(Sorry if this is a bump btw)

 

Aren't we support to compare 0.8 to 0.9?
/bump

 

I Finally got 0.9 today and boy whats the difference. I get like 40-50 FPS on 0.9. On the other hand, I was getting 20-30 on 0.8. Still I don't have many numbers to talk about this but I will make some tests for sure but sadly the B-25 Is dead again :c
btw Why fufsgfen disappeared for a lot of time ?