I bought a computer today. I get to pick it up once it's finished being built in 1-4 days time.
• Cooler Master MasterCase PRO 5 with FreeForm Modular System
• Intel Core I7 7700K Kaby Lake Quad Core 4.2Ghz
• 32 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200Mhz
• ADATA Ultimate SU800 1TB SSD
• 2x WD Black 4TB Hard Disk Drive 7200RPM
• Windows 10 operating system
• GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1070 G1 Gaming 8GB
• LG 24x DVD RW optical drive
• 850W Corsair RMi Gold Certified PSU
• Cooler Master Hyper 212 evo CPU cooler
• Asus Prime Z270-A Mother Board
Note: I plan to upgrade video card in about a years time. Which is why I did not go with 1080 video card now because I plan to get even better card a year down the road and wanted to save $200 now.
Okay I admit the subject is a little misleading I already know this PC should run Rimworld well. But to be honest I have no idea to predict how well. I consider it a near top of the line PC. My current PC can be found here. http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/4004453 And my current PC does not run Rimworld to well. I think my CPU is the bottleneck.
I plan to do some benchmark for Rimworld on my new PC. Probably with the website http://www.userbenchmark.com/PCGame/FPS-Estimates-RimWorld/3808/0.0.0.0.0 And maybe even eventually post a video comparison of the performance of Rimworld showing the difference of my current PC VS my New PC. But I am going to need to accurately show the FPS. Does Rimworld have a built in way to view FPS or do I need a 3rd party program like Fraps etc?
P.S If I ever do make a video I may post the results here. I kind of want to setup various saves with different amounts of colonists on different size maps. And maybe even spawn a tribal raid which is probably the most demanding event in the game? See what kind of results I get for FPS etc. And if my temps hold up I will do some low level overclocking on CPU and see if it makes any noticeable difference while playing.
I have similar specs... no lag/frame drops until late late game on giant maps and are getting raided while on fire.
Glad to hear sevenvt I like playing on larger size maps with a fair amount of colonists and stuff going on. And with mods. A little lag is fine for me but my current PC can't run this type of stuff without lots of issues with lag. lol Thanks.
When I look at this, I think you will never fall under 30fps.
Except in the case of horribad, ancient integrated graphics, CPU is almost always the bottleneck in RimWorld, although very slow, low-grade RAM could easily cause issues as well. What, the fancy pawn icons distracted you ::)..?
Quote from: viperwasp on July 07, 2017, 03:01:32 AM
I plan to do some benchmark for Rimworld on my new PC. Probably with the website http://www.userbenchmark.com/PCGame/FPS-Estimates-RimWorld/3808/0.0.0.0.0 And maybe even eventually post a video comparison of the performance of Rimworld showing the difference of my current PC VS my New PC. But I am going to need to accurately show the FPS. Does Rimworld have a built in way to view FPS or do I need a 3rd party program like Fraps etc?
If you got Steam-version of Rimworld, Steam has a FPS-meter you can enable at Steam itself: "Settings - In Game - FPS-counter".
The case and the DVD drive will probably slow the whole thing down, so thank you for sharing these details...
Honestly, the game runs fine even on my two year old notebook with integrated graphics...
The only problems I see in this discussion are Windows10 and Steam .. I think those are the biggest cause of performance loss.
Else I wish I had your problems :)
My Desktop is about 10 years old, and still runs Rimworld quite flawless, though there are mods that can tear that down ..
You'd be unlikely to get less than 30FPS in late-game Dwarf Fortress with a rig like that!
Quote from: Jake on August 05, 2017, 08:12:40 PM
You'd be unlikely to get less than 30FPS in late-game Dwarf Fortress with a rig like that!
;D
I bet the right world-gen options could still make it sweat.
Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 05, 2017, 10:35:13 PM
Quote from: Jake on August 05, 2017, 08:12:40 PM
You'd be unlikely to get less than 30FPS in late-game Dwarf Fortress with a rig like that!
;D
I bet the right world-gen options could still make it sweat.
Or the right combo of cats and magma or water machines.
Nah. All you need are two words: "Dwarven economy". They invent gold coins, your computer eventually implodes...
The results. Well I have not done full on benchmarks yet. Like FPS tests but I will probably still go though with my plans. I have played for about 25 hours of game play on my new PC. But ultimately the game lags and slows down a lot still even on my new PC. I play the DRM free version. And I play on a fairly small landing site size. But I get like 30 colonists with a good 5-10 pets and like 25+ mods and I run into a fair bit of slow down. It goes back and forward between nearly seemless and slowing down.
The CPU is almost always the bottle neck. My CPU cooler is not good enough for any overclocking but none the less I have about the most powerful single core strength CPU minus overclocking. So it's just how Rimworld is. Speed drops are going to be common when it's late game, huge base, lots of colonists and plenty of mods. But it's more then playable still so it's still great.
And I can run Fallout 4 on 100% maxed settings 1920x1080, with the enhanced texture package download installed at a solid 90-110 FPS even during combat segments in the game. This is not even on my SSD not that SSD will do much in terms of FPS. So it's not the PC it's just Rimworld optimization and without multicore support which likely will never come I don't think rimworld will ever run flawlessly in this conditions until maybe 5-10 years from now.
P.S Rimworld is installed on my SSD.
And for those of you who love Benchmarks etc... Here is my new PC's User benchmark.
http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/4236151
Please tell us you aren't running an 8 Gb Raid 0 array on those 2 WD Blacks >.<' ! Bad idea, if so; that's a ginormous amount of data to kiss off, when a drive goes south, and an electromechanical drive WILL eventually fail. It's no replacement for regular backups, but I recommend RAID 5, at the barest minimum (you'd need at least 1 more HD).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels
Well, that seals it, Moore's law is dead for CPUs. My CPU, the i7-3820, is about 70% of the speed of that, or about 81% with mild ratio-only overclocking (currently 4200mhz - also rocking 32 gigs, but 4x8 gig rather than 2x16..eight memory slots yo~). It's around five years old now. I can not justify dropping another thousand dollars to pretty much have the same specs (although I will replace the video card at some point).
By comparison, in the summer 1995, a top of the line system might have a 200mhz Pentium (not MMX) in it, and just slightly less than five years later, in spring of 2000, a Pentium-III Coppermine at 1ghz running on the significantly more powerful P6 microarchitecture. Granted that's not doubling every 18 months either (it's 5 to maybe 7 times more powerful, not the 10-and-change that would be necessary to have doubled three and a third times), but it's a sizable increase (500-700%, vs 140%).
I'd like to run the benchmark software from the site, but I'm leery of trusting J. Random Website (with
domain privacy) and it's
closed source software...
Quote from: Bozobub on August 09, 2017, 03:35:25 PM
Please tell us you aren't running an 8 Gb Raid 0 array on those 2 WD Blacks >.<' ! Bad idea, if so; that's a ginormous amount of data to kiss off, when a drive goes south, and an electromechanical drive WILL eventually fail. It's no replacement for regular backups, but I recommend RAID 5, at the barest minimum (you'd need at least 1 more HD).
They're benched separately in the link provided, so I presume they're provisioned classically (independent drives)... And as you say, there's no replacement for backups, so I'd personally stay away from anything fancy that could have unpleasant surprises -- many RAID chips are effectively software-driven and suck the performance out of a machine, you might get higher wear on the drives, you might even have worse performance, and you WILL have problems in a recovery scenario. Better to spend any extra money on backup hardware. External drives, a nice little NAS, etc.
Thanks for the advice Bozobub it's would have been very helpful if I did use raid. But Renegrade is correct they are both independent. Let me describe my whole setup.
I have a dual monitor PC setup. (I used to use three but one blew up. Two works for now.) With a PCI-E Capture Card in my PC. I have an HDMI Matrix hooked up to various video game systems that can dual output to both my T.V and to the PCI-E Capture Card. I use my SSD for O.S, various programs and certain select games. My first 4TB Hard Drive carries the bulk of my other programs and most if not nearly all pictures and video files and games. The second 4TB drive is eventually going to have around 1-2TB of project files. And the other 2TB or more will always be left empty for a blank slate for recording. I use various programs to record both PC games and console games onto my PC. The uncompressed files are large then I compress them later. So the 2TB is temp room for recordings and the other 2TB is for the final compressed projects.
As for backup it's not automated by raid or program. I simply have multiple external hard drives. And I keep about three copies of very important files. And two copies of nearly all files. Only files I really don't consider important at all may have no backups. But 99.9% of all files are backup up and a lot of them have 3+ copies.
And Renegrade I see what you mean by Userbenchmark I personally trust it but now that you mention it if the owner did want to put malicious content in the software I guess they could. That goes for most sites and programs though. And while it's Benchmark aspects are kind of awesome I do use other programs as well. You can't always rely on one Benchmark. Your PC seems good and I agree spending tons of extra money for virtual the same performance is not that great of an idea.
This PC of mine basically needs to last 7-8 years. I expect three years of high performance. 3 years after that of moderate performance, and then 1-3 years of usability but diminishing performance for any current gen game or program at that time. I do plan on three possible upgrades.
1. Adding capture card? : You see I don't actually have the capture card yet. My previous PC has one but my primary setup is not complete for my new PC yet. Within one month I plan to buy and install a capture card. Any advice on a good PCI-E capture card? I am still doing research.
2. I will be upgrading my video card to a good $500-$800 price range card over 1 and a half years from now.
3. I plan to upgrade my CPU cooling and or CPU if possible. I know it's possible to upgrade cooling but I want like a eight core 4.2Ghz or higher CPU basically something that does not exist now without overclocking and by the time it does exist it may not be supported by my motherboard. So I may only upgrade my cooling and then overclock my 7700k.
P.S I know GHZ itself means nothing. Like I think you were saying about Moore's law. More is not always better. Different CPU's with the same Ghz can perform extremely differently. But usually if it's within the same brand and product lineup then it can be considered a proper way to measure performance. So when comparing two cpu's it's important to look at price, performance in benchmark and specs. But I ultimately want to eventually get a CPU that has eight or more cores were each individual core can be as powerful as the 7700k. Which like I said overclocking is the only possible way to achieve that now and I may not be able to support a CPU like that with my current motherboard I might get close but not quite what I want. I am happy right now.
With proper cooling, many recent Intel chips will push nearly 5 GHz or even over; even with "only" good air cooling, you can get a LOT of headroom out of most Intel chips. For example, I was able to push my last Core2Quad (last generation of 'em, "Yorkfield") from 3.0 GHz to just under 4 GHZ (just under 33%), with only a (large!) after-market CPU cooler and fan :o.
Thanks Bozobub I totally plan on trying overclocking once my PC can support it.
Don't overclock until you *need to* for some reason; don't just do it out of the blue. O/Cing is a large stress on your CPU and other components (most overclocking boosts FSB frequencies, for example, although there are ways to avoid this) and will inevitably shorten the life of your CPU by some unknown fraction ???.
I'm not saying "don't do it", mind you. But your CPU and GPU honestly shouldn't need any overclocking for a good, long while.
I finally updated my first Rimworld video. It has an FPS display. You can see how my computer handles the game. This video is more of a test it's not what I would consider a proper benchmark it's just going to show how my game plays under certain situations. I also had to test the recording software, editing and upload process. And it's also just to show you all my colony as well. In the future I hope to put up a more concrete thought out video with more purpose. Take a look if your interested.
[A17] Rimworld [Modded]: Performance on I7 7700k & Benchmarking first look discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj7vvQt5naw
And also
I agree Bozobub but I would overclock now if I could any more performance from Rimworld and other single core programs would be awesome.
Dude I have an anchient i5 520m on a laptop and an Nvidia with 500 mb vram and rimworld works great up to having 30 pawns.
@viperwasp
sorry your new pc totally sucks, and you should rather buy another one, than trying to play Rimworld on this one.
I would gladly take this old junk from your hands. ;D ;D ;D
How does it run without mods? Wouldn't be surprised if some mod is slowing things down... :)
When I first time got Rimworld I was using 16-bit computer from 2008. Rimworld runs well. CPU speed did not change much, Graphic cost is small. So, I believe so long as you have enough memory and memory is fast enough it will run well.
Quote from: Jake on August 05, 2017, 08:12:40 PM
You'd be unlikely to get less than 30FPS in late-game Dwarf Fortress with a rig like that!
Yeah, no. I DOUBLE-DOG DARE you to let a big colony of Dorfs invent the gold economy. Oh ye gods, the stuttering agony! Even a Cray supercomputer would poop itself! More serously,
less than 1 FPS is easily possible on a monster rig with a very large (say, 250 Dorfs) colony =x .
And only the Elder Gods can help you if you have a catsplosion (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/40d:Catsplosion) at the same time...the horror...the horror...
A Cooler Master MasterCase PRO 5 with FreeForm Modular System? That should run RimWorld at around 370FPS (at 320x200).
I was looking at getting a Cooler Master MasterCase PRO 5 with FreeForm Modular System myself, but in the end I decided on an Even Cooler Master Masterly MasterCase Master PRO 7. Sure, it was $400 extra for the go-faster stripes and annoying LEDs, but hey, I'm worth it, and I'm sure my life will be much better now! :'(
Quote from: Mutineer on November 08, 2017, 01:29:23 AM
When I first time got Rimworld I was using 16-bit computer from 2008. Rimworld runs well. CPU speed did not change much, Graphic cost is small. So, I believe so long as you have enough memory and memory is fast enough it will run well.
May have missed some context, but you ARE joking right? About having a 16 bit computer? When was the last 16 bit computer made, the intel 386 about 25 - 30 years ago? And even that wasn't completely a 16 bit computer, so probably the 286?
AFAIK, you certainly weren't running Rimworld on any 16 bit computer. Please correct me if I'm wrong because I'd certainly be interested in what you had going on.
edit: (looking at the response just above mine by StupidityHurts I'm thinking there is a running gag going on about nonsense specs. Namely the 320x200 in this case)
Quote from: BlackSmokeDMax on November 08, 2017, 10:47:45 AM
Quote from: Mutineer on November 08, 2017, 01:29:23 AM
When I first time got Rimworld I was using 16-bit computer from 2008. Rimworld runs well. CPU speed did not change much, Graphic cost is small. So, I believe so long as you have enough memory and memory is fast enough it will run well.
May have missed some context, but you ARE joking right? About having a 16 bit computer? When was the last 16 bit computer made, the intel 386 about 25 - 30 years ago? And even that wasn't completely a 16 bit computer, so probably the 286?
AFAIK, you certainly weren't running Rimworld on any 16 bit computer. Please correct me if I'm wrong because I'd certainly be interested in what you had going on.
edit: (looking at the response just above mine by StupidityHurts I'm thinking there is a running gag going on about nonsense specs. Namely the 320x200 in this case)
I did mean 32 bits. Misspell as I am rather old. But gust of my post is valid, My old system run at 4 MG, like new computers. In last 8 years change to 64 bits with the development of multithreading, more effective cash, faster memory access and a bit more complex commands speed up processors a bit, but for rim world, it is not much of a problem. So long as your system not paging you are fine on 32-bit computer.
Quote from: SpaceDorf on October 10, 2017, 08:02:23 AM
@viperwasp
sorry your new pc totally sucks, and you should rather buy another one, than trying to play Rimworld on this one.
I would gladly take this old junk from your hands. ;D ;D ;D
Sorry for the late reply. I am sure you would just LOVE for me to abandon my new PC and give it to you! lol I loved your comment thanks. I sort of gave up on FPS for now. Mainly because I don't even have a working program that can do FPS tests. I used to use Fraps but I don't think it works well anymore on Windows 10. umm.... So for now I am putting this on hold.