Will my New PC Run Rimworld Well? And FPS question.

[viperwasp]

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.

[sevenvt]

I have similar specs... no lag/frame drops until late late game on giant maps and are getting raided while on fire.

[viperwasp]

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.

[kubolek01]

When I look at this, I think you will never fall under 30fps.

[Bozobub]

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 ..?

[Killazer]

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".

[plotz]

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...

[SpaceDorf]

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 ..

[Jake]

You'd be unlikely to get less than 30FPS in late-game Dwarf Fortress with a rig like that!

[SpaceDorf]

You'd be unlikely to get less than 30FPS in late-game Dwarf Fortress with a rig like that!

I bet the right world-gen options could still make it sweat.

[BlackSmokeDMax]

You'd be unlikely to get less than 30FPS in late-game Dwarf Fortress with a rig like that!

I bet the right world-gen options could still make it sweat.

Or the right combo of cats and magma or water machines.

[Bozobub]

Nah.  All you need are two words:  "Dwarven economy".  They invent gold coins, your computer eventually implodes...

[viperwasp]

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

[Bozobub]

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

[Renegrade]

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...

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.