PC Hardware | video settings | benchmarksPC

[BrandonW77]

Unless you tweak the car's data files in notepad, where you can change any setting to any number.

You've just made @praiano63 a very happy boy.

 

[praiano63]

I´ve already made a tune a few monthes ago Tuning test: MCLaren MP4 GT3-PRO-Nurburgring.
Sure that suspension settings in AC , at least at this time where totally different as the way they are in GT6, not so much improvment , not faster , but the car was more adapted to my driving style.
I haven´t play AC anymore just because of my cheap PC that don´t allow me to have any fun doing this.
I´m going to spend some money on it for sure. I can trust on my 5 years old G27 .

 

[Whitestar]

According to some of Stefano's latest tweets they have had a breakhrough regarding performance. Looks promising.
"WOW! Starting with 16 cars in front smoking their tyres, silky smooth! Not a single FPS drop.. Impressive, loving this."

https://twitter.com/KunosStefano (scroll a bit down)

 

[Johnnypenso]

According to some of Stefano's latest tweets they have had a breakhrough regarding performance. Looks promising.
"WOW! Starting with 16 cars in front smoking their tyres, silky smooth! Not a single FPS drop.. Impressive, loving this."

https://twitter.com/KunosStefano (scroll a bit down)

 

[BrandonW77]

He also indicated it would probably be some time before we see the benefit of this.

 

[Kitten]

I run GTX770 ACX 2GB, i7 4770k... And Assetto Corsa runs butter smooth. on almost everything max. Just until you hit a laggy room


Thats with FXAA

60-80FPS

 

[MJRL]

I know my cpu its a bit old (xeon 3520) but the cpu occupancy drives me crazy, running at 100fps GTX970 and have this problem...
They have a lot of optimization to do...

 

[Punknoodle]

I'm actually pleasantly surprised with my PC's performance now that I'm running 5900x1080 resolution with my triple screens.

I was worried that it would be too much for my GTX 780 to handle but hotlapping I can have max settings and not get any frame drops (V-Sync 60Hz). With a full grid in front of me I'm experiencing roughly the same drop I was getting with just running a single monitor, I've dropped the settings a bit and it's smooth now and still looks amazing.

Hopefully this is a good sign that I'll be able to run Project Cars at a fairly high setting at 5900x1080 too...

 

[MJRL]

I'm actually pleasantly surprised with my PC's performance now that I'm running 5900x1080 resolution with my triple screens.

I was worried that it would be too much for my GTX 780 to handle but hotlapping I can have max settings and not get any frame drops (V-Sync 60Hz). With a full grid in front of me I'm experiencing roughly the same drop I was getting with just running a single monitor, I've dropped the settings a bit and it's smooth now and still looks amazing.

Hopefully this is a good sign that I'll be able to run Project Cars at a fairly high setting at 5900x1080 too...

I don't remember where iv'e seen, but i think you should disable vsync with triple screens.

 

[Kurei]

I don't mean to be a bother, but I've got a hardware question around AC and thought this would be the most appropriate place to ask it.

I've been piecing together a PC-build over the past week with a friend, that'll (supposedly) handle any sim-racer game I throw at it on 'high' settings @ 60fps (capped by my HDTV which I want to use as a monitor), and I've kinda hit a snag as to what I should do for the disk drive.

Me and my friend have narrowed things down to the following options.
Opt1: SSD+HDD
-HyperX Fury SHFS37A/120G 2.5" 120GB SATA III Internal Solid State Drive
-Western Digital Blue WD10EZEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s
Opt2: HDD only
-Western Digital Blue WD10EZEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s
Opt3: SSD/HDD 'Combo'
-Seagate Hybrid Drive ST2000DX001 2TB MLC/8GB 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s NCQ 3.5"

Now, performance-aside, the price of a SSD&HDD vs. the 'combo' unit is not too far off, the question(s) is do I want to go the 'combo' route - at the risk of 1 part (SSD or HDD) going bad & causing both to be 'bad' ? (I know not common, but I'm a expect-the-worst kinda guy )

Or, do I go the route @Johnnypenso suggested, taking the money saved from going 8mb-mem vs 16mb-mem (huge difference btw Johnny 👍) and look for a 240gb SSD ?. Apparently AC-data (especially with mods) can build quickly.

I'd be fine with a 'small' SSD / 'big' HDD setup, I grew-up with load-times (PS1 yo') so playing from HDD is totally fine, this 'dilemma' is more from a trying-to-future-proof-without-seeing-future perspective.

This will be the first PC I've ever built (thank-god for friends & family good with PC's ), and I'd like to stay around a $800-$900 budget - thelowerthebetter, not breaking that magical $1k mark, but also build it with the intention of future-proofing.

So... suggestions ?

Here's the rest of my 'build' as it stands, if needed for reference.
-Intel i5-4440 processor
-MSI Z97S SLI Krait Edition LGA 1150 Intel Z97
-G.SKILL Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 (PC3 14900)
-MSI GTX 960 GAMING 2G GeForce GTX 960
-Thermaltake SMART Series SP-750PCBUS 750W ATX 12V 2.3 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified
-Antec GX500 ILLUSION Black Computer Case

 

[Wiz]

I'd go with Option 1 but would pass on the HyperX and go for something a little better. Take a look at the Crucial MX100 series of SSD's.

You can compare the 2 here - http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Kingston-HyperX-Fury-120GB-vs-Crucial-MX100-128GB/2586vs2618

The 256gb version of the MX100 series is only $105 So for only $40 more than the HyperX you had chosen, you could double your capacity on a drive that also gets better benchmark scores than the HyperX series. That's the route I'd go if it were my money.

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

Personal opinion, so apologies if it isn't particularly helpful, but if your aim is for future proofing, I would suffer longer load times but not having an SSD and put that money towards a beefier graphics card with more VRAM, I don't think 2GB is going to be enough if you want to use ultra or even high settings @1080p.

 

[Wiz]

Personal opinion, so apologies if it isn't particularly helpful, but if your aim is for future proofing, I would suffer longer load times but not having an SSD and put that money towards a beefier graphics card with more VRAM, I don't think 2GB is going to be enough if you want to use ultra or even high settings @1080p.

Much better advice than mine. Skip the SSD and the 960 and go for a 970.

 

[Kurei]

Personal opinion, so apologies if it isn't particularly helpful, but if your aim is for future proofing, I would suffer longer load times but not having an SSD and put that money towards a beefier graphics card with more VRAM, I don't think 2GB is going to be enough if you want to use ultra or even high settings @1080p.

Do you mean ultra/high for AC ?, I already know I'm not after ultra-graphics, but high would be nice, even if I have to run 1 or 2 other things at medium.

Coming from last-gen consoles/GT6, would I miss 'high' if I settled on a mix of high/medium ?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Personal opinion, so apologies if it isn't particularly helpful, but if your aim is for future proofing, I would suffer longer load times but not having an SSD and put that money towards a beefier graphics card with more VRAM, I don't think 2GB is going to be enough if you want to use ultra or even high settings @1080p.

Good advice:tup: I should have noticed that myself If I was forced to make a tradeoff between graphics and faster load times, I'd take the graphics. You can always add an SSD later if you want.

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

Do you mean ultra/high for AC ?, I already know I'm not after ultra-graphics, but high would be nice, even if I have to run 1 or 2 other things at medium.

Coming from last-gen consoles/GT6, would I miss 'high' if I settled on a mix of high/medium ?

I've just done some quick benchmarks for you using the bigger brother GTX 970 and using Afterburner to display VRAM usage. Set to an output of 1920x1080, 60fps, I picked a Kunos track (Silverstone) and one Kunos car (BMW E92):

Test 1: All graphical settings set to high, 4x Anti Aliasing - 1.84GB VRAM in use
Test 2: All graphical settings set to medium, 2x Anti Aliasing - 1.47GB VRAM in use
Test 3: All graphical settings set to medium, 2x Anti Aliasing, this time with 24 cars in a race (all Kunos cars, 7 different car models selected by random) - 2.37GB VRAM in use

With the GTX960's 2GB VRAM, you'll only be able to run at high settings hotlapping by yourself, or you will have to limit races down to just a handlefull of cars on medium settings, there is almost a 1GB jump in VRAM usage when adding a full grid, a GTX960 will probably manage 12-14 car grids before you run into limited VRAM issues. If you wish to use community made tracks and vehicles, these often come with significantly higher VRAM usage as they have only one level of detail and often are less optimised.

When I had a 2GB HD7850, the above is pretty much how I had to play, 1080/60, high settings hotlapping or 1080/60, medium+high settings with a full grid as long as I disabled AA or limited grid with AA turned on.

To compare the graphics between medium and high; medium looks fine and is perfectly usable, but high settings is a noticeable improvement.

 

[RReed43]

I only have an SSD (512 mB) in my setup. I have network drives for storage so I only need program space. SSD makes a huge difference in the overall response of a computer.

 

[Kurei]

Alright, thanks for the suggestions guys, especially @Lewis_Hamilton_ with that explanation/breakdown of 2GB vs. 4GB.

I'll probably go with a GTX970 for future-proofing & graphical superiority, and re-consider my HDD options 👍

 

[BrandonW77]

I'll probably go with a GTX970 for future-proofing & graphical superiority, and re-consider my HDD options 👍

Do it. 👍 My understanding is that a SSD only helps with loading times, not actual game play, and loading times on AC are already very short (takes maybe 8-10 seconds to load most track). I'd much rather wait a few more seconds for the game to load and have it at higher quality/smoother FPS. The 970 seems to be pretty robust, I run three 32" 720p screens off of one GTX970 and can run most of the settings at pretty high quality and rock a solid 60fps even with a full grid.

 

[Whitestar]

Not sure if you already know this, but speaking of future proofing and the GTX 970, I think you should be aware of the memory issue that has recently been the talk of the hardware forums regarding the GTX 970. It seems nVidia has been less than honest about how the card's memory works. I'll just link you to a couple of sites explaining the problem.

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-memory-issue-fully-explained/
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/does-the-geforce-gtx-970-have-a-memory-allocation-bug.html

There doesn't seem to be any definitive conclusions on whether this is a real issue in games unless you push the settings/res to absolute maximums. But people have reported issues with Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor and Dying Light at 1080p High/Ultra Settings. I'll let you do your own research.

That said, Assetto Corsa is an optimized game IMO and will be optimized further, so I don't think this will ever be an issue in AC, nor in any other sim. I'll leave it to those who own the GTX 970 to test/confirm.

I just wanted to bring this to your attention, because some of you may like me use your rig for many other games in addition to sims. There really isn't any way of knowing whether problems will occur in future games because of this. But for all practical purposes the GTX 970 now has to be regarded as a 3.5GB card.

 

[MJRL]

I don't like that, but i think it's enough.
The problem with AC it's more cpu related, with the occupancy.
I hope they optimized that.

 

[Kurei]

I am aware of the GTX970's 3.5fast/0.5slow discovery, I was linked to it as well over in one of the P.CARS threads. I'm still about half-a-month from needing to make final decisions, so I've got time to further research things (if I can find time) as needed.

Thanks for the heads-up tho' 👍

 

[KWAKAMAN]

What could I expect in the way of performance from this build?

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/9BCMrH

Anybody have a similar build?

 

[m00ndancer]

What could I expect in the way of performance from this build?

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/9BCMrH

Anybody have a similar build?

You will get a better performance from an i5-3340 1150-socket and the cheapest R9 290 and no need for aio cooler, 1866mhz memory, ssd

 

[JohnScoonsBeard]

Hi. I'm probably hoping for the impossible but is there any chance I might be able to get Assetta Corsa running on my Laptop (details below)? Wasn't sure if optimisation might mean I could just about run it at minimum resolution and settings even if it's just in hot lap mode.

Dell Inspiron

Intel Core I5 CPU M 430@ 2.27 ghz 2.26 ghz

Quad core
RAM 4gb
Win 7 64 bit system

Ati Radeon HD5470 with 1gb video ram

 

[Johnnypenso]

Hi. I'm probably hoping for the impossible but is there any chance I might be able to get Assetta Corsa running on my Laptop (details below)? Wasn't sure if optimisation might mean I could just about run it at minimum resolution and settings even if it's just in hot lap mode.

Dell Inspiron

Intel Core I5 CPU M 430@ 2.27 ghz 2.26 ghz

Quad core
RAM 4gb
Win 7 64 bit system

Ati Radeon HD5470 with 1gb video ram

The first computer I tried it on had these specs:
AMD A10-5800K APU 3.8ghz Quad Core
8 gigs ram
AMD Radeon HD7570 graphics card

I ran very low settings, pretty much everything off, and was able to get 60fps. I didn't fiddle with it too much, but it seemed as soon as I turned anything up I dipped below 60 pretty dramatically. The GPU is an obvious issue. Mine benchmarked around 1000, the 5470 has to be much lower than that.

 

[JohnScoonsBeard]

The first computer I tried it on had these specs:
AMD A10-5800K APU 3.8ghz Quad Core
8 gigs ram
AMD Radeon HD7570 graphics card

I ran very low settings, pretty much everything off, and was able to get 60fps. I didn't fiddle with it too much, but it seemed as soon as I turned anything up I dipped below 60 pretty dramatically. The GPU is an obvious issue. Mine benchmarked around 1000, the 5470 has to be much lower than that.

Oh poodoo. It's definitely not going to work

 

[HKS racer]

Is there a chance I can play Assetto Corsa on good settings and frame rate (60fps) on a modern gaming laptop? My budget is around 1000 - 1200 euro.
Any laptop gamer out there?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Is there a chance I can play Assetto Corsa on good settings and frame rate (60fps) on a modern gaming laptop? My budget is around 1000 - 1200 euro.
Any laptop gamer out there?

Need specs. All depends on the CPU/GPU.

 

[HKS racer]

Need specs. All depends on the CPU/GPU.

CPU: Intel Core i7 4710QM 3.5 GHz
GPU: Intel HD 4600 + GeForce GTX 860M 2 GB GDDR5
RAM: 8 GB DDR3
HDD: 1 TB + 8 GB SSD