- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,771 (1.38/day)
Processor | 7800x3d |
---|---|
Motherboard | Gigabyte B650 Auros Elite AX |
Cooling | Custom Water |
Memory | GSKILL 2x16gb 6000mhz Cas 30 with custom timings |
Video Card(s) | MSI RX 6750 XT MECH 2X 12G OC |
Storage | Adata SX8200 1tb with Windows, Samsung 990 Pro 2tb with games |
Display(s) | HP Omen 27q QHD 165hz |
Case | ThermalTake P3 |
Power Supply | SuperFlower Leadex Titanium |
Software | Windows 11 64 Bit |
Benchmark Scores | CB23: 1811 / 19424 CB24: 1136 / 7687 |
My synthetic testing was specifically done with Microbenchmarks. I can share my data table with setting and results when I get home. I did no in game testing myself. I do not know how much in game or other real work loads performance has improved.It's not that I don't believe you, but I just really have a hard time believing that either of these situations (tuned 6000 vs 6200, tuned 6000 vs 6400) will result in more than 3% of real performance. And on X3D, no less. Maybe if there is a specific well-controlled in-game benchmark that you can run.
Not even tuned vs XMP, usually results in massive double digit real world gains.
As to Star Citizen, not a space simmer but only thing I've ever heard people say about performance is that it is optimized like garbage.
While I cannot speak to the specifics of the memory performance testing with Star Citizen that showed a 20% improvement I can confirm that it is a very unoptimized game. Star Citizen is an alpha and until the last year has been minimal performance optimization. The game requires an NVME SSD and 32gb memory to not have a stuttery slide show. I don't know the technical reasons why but Star Citizen is a memory intensive game. Memory bandwidth is very impactful.
There is no in game bench mark. Everyone I know of doing extensive in game performance testing does many runs in the same locations and aggregates the data using CapFrameX. This is the best we can do to test performance right now.
Last edited: