Assetto Corsa Benchmark Thread

  • Thread starter Punknoodle
  • 59 comments
  • 27,810 views
Was one of those corners the two sharp right handers at the back of Magione? I had trouble with those for months with horrible stuttering. I noticed in my benchmark my frames went as low as 34:guilty: They certainly can't be having something like that when the game makes it to console.
Yes that is one of the spots I was having issues with. I am :banghead: for never lowering that sooner, but I was always above "MY" minimum fps before getting to that setting.
Enjoyable experience is a very subjective thing. For me it's about keeping the framerate above my refresh rate (since I'm using vsync) while still having a decent amount of eye candy. For smooth and stutter-free gameplay.

I guess you'll just have to figure it out for yourself: What's the minimum framerate you can accept with how many cars on the track, and at which graphical detail. :) Once you figure that out it's just a matter of driving some laps, watching the replay and keep an eye on the fps and adjust settings accordingly. Then repeat the process until you are happy. That's is what I did, but of course others might have a completely different approach.

The fps score is irrelevant at the moment, until we know how it's calculated, so I wouldn't worry to much about it.
It really is about trial and error with your combo of parts to get the best out of PC gaming. It takes some time, and in my case more effort, to get things right but once they are the PC really does show why it has the "master race" title.
 
Max settings
photo 1.JPG


Min settings
photo 2.JPG
 
I love this new benchmark tool, it offers a really nice and quick way to finetune your graphics settings. Main FPS hitters for me appear to be reflections and shadows.
 
Yep, the reflection frequency is a real killer. And it doesn't give much back in terms of visual impact either. Yes, cars may look better up close when you pass them, but not enough to warrant that huge performance loss.
It's more of a screenshot feature I guess, and/or for pretty replays.
 
Last edited:
Just for laughs I set all settings to minimum:

AC VERSION: 1.3.4 (x64)
POINTS: 47886
FPS: AVG=326 MIN=31 MAX=505 VARIANCE=61 CPU=89%

LOADING TIME: 13s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (640x480)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 8
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:1X AF:0X SHDW:512 BLUR:0
WORLD DETAIL: 0 SMOKE:0
PP: QLT:5 HDR:0 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:1

Time to crank up the overclock and crack the 50,000 mark :D
 
Max settings.

AC VERSION: 1.3.7 (x64)
POINTS: 5285
FPS: AVG=36 MIN=20 MAX=68 VARIANCE=0 CPU=67%

LOADING TIME: 30s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (5760x1080)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200() 0x300-0x1
CPU CORES: 8
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:9
WORLD DETAIL:5 SMOKE:5
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:1


Still some tinkering around the the GPU to see if it can get better.
 
AC VERSION: 1.4.3 (x64)
POINTS: 6809
FPS: AVG=46 MIN=28 MAX=60 VARIANCE=0 CPU=56%

LOADING TIME: 41s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (3200x1350)
OS-Version: 6.1.7601 (Service Pack 1) 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 4
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:0
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:5
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:1

AC VERSION: 1.4.3 (x64)
POINTS: 6962
FPS: AVG=47 MIN=27 MAX=108 VARIANCE=0 CPU=57%

LOADING TIME: 46s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (1920x1080)
OS-Version: 6.1.7601 (Service Pack 1) 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 4
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:0
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:5
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:1


I don't get why the loading times are so high. Yesterday, a friend had loading times of a few seconds.

I also have an SSD.
 
Last edited:
Reïnstalled this pc, clean install and the results are back to normal.

AC VERSION: 1.4.3 (x64)
POINTS: 17199
FPS: AVG=117 MIN=47 MAX=205 VARIANCE=0 CPU=52%

LOADING TIME: 12s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (1920x1080)
OS-Version: 6.1.7601 (Service Pack 1) 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 4
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:0
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:3
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:1

FPS up
Loading times down. As it should be.
 
Reïnstalled this pc, clean install and the results are back to normal.

AC VERSION: 1.4.3 (x64)
POINTS: 17199
FPS: AVG=117 MIN=47 MAX=205 VARIANCE=0 CPU=52%

LOADING TIME: 12s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (1920x1080)
OS-Version: 6.1.7601 (Service Pack 1) 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 4
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:0
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:3
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:1

FPS up
Loading times down. As it should be.
You mean you reinstalled the game or wiped your pc and reinstalled all your software?
 
Playing with the settings... I'm torn... 2nd one looked better, but first one had higher fps... though not much difference.

First

AC VERSION: 1.4.3 (x64)
POINTS: 21356
FPS: AVG=145 MIN=56 MAX=224 VARIANCE=27 CPU=82%

LOADING TIME: 24s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (5760x1080)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 8
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:1X AF:2X SHDW:4096 BLUR:0
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:4
PP: QLT:4 HDR:1 FXAA:0 GLR:4 DOF:4 RAYS:1 HEAT:1

2nd

AC VERSION: 1.4.3 (x64)
POINTS: 17386
FPS: AVG=118 MIN=42 MAX=206 VARIANCE=7 CPU=67%

LOADING TIME: 16s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (5760x1080)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 8
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:2X SHDW:4096 BLUR:0
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:4
PP: QLT:4 HDR:1 FXAA:0 GLR:4 DOF:4 RAYS:0 HEAT:0

Loading time was 8s better though... and lower CPU usage...
Unsure what they mean by variance...
 
Poking this dead, old thread with a stick.


Installed a "new" CPU today (as in it's going to be 7 years old soon). Settled on some 24/7 overclocks (Xeon X5670@4.2Ghz, GTX 980Ti@1400Mhz/3700Mhz).

Here are my results running with absolutely everything maxed out at double the resolution of 1080p. After the first 2 seconds of the benchmark the frame rate never dipped below 60fps. Pretty sure this 2008 X58 architecture is going to see it through to a whopping 10 years of relevancy, still kicking some butt, especially with the upsurge of DX12/Vulkan.


AC VERSION: 1.7.5 (x64)
POINTS: 9662
FPS: AVG=65 MIN=10 MAX=93 VARIANCE=1 CPU=42%

LOADING TIME: 17s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (2715x1527)
OS-Version: 6.1.7601 (Service Pack 1) 0x300-0x1
CPU CORES: 12
FULLSCREEN: OFF
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:10
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:5
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:1
 
Bout time someone resurrected this thread, good stuff. :)
Wait now, was Reflection Quality and Reflection Frequency/Faces at max also? If so, then wow!
 
Bout time someone resurrected this thread, good stuff. :)
Wait now, was Reflection Quality and Reflection Frequency/Faces at max also? If so, then wow!

Yes, everything was on ultra/max: Both Mirror options; Reflection Quality; Reflection Rendering Frequency; Shadow Resolution etc.
 
I may need a CPU ugrade, but it'll be interesting to see what optimizations Stefano has up his sleeve for 1.8.
 
CPU upgrade, triple screens, settings I currently play with

i7 5820k, X99 sabertooth, quad sli 760

AC VERSION: 1.7.5 (x64)
POINTS: 14615
FPS: AVG=99 MIN=5 MAX=182 VARIANCE=8 CPU=45%

LOADING TIME: 11s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 (6000x1200)
OS-Version: 6.1.7601 (Service Pack 1) 0x300-0x1
CPU CORES: 12
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:0
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:3
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:0 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:0 HEAT:0
 
AC VERSION: 1.7.5 (x64)
POINTS: 14111
FPS: AVG=96 MIN=44 MAX=129 VARIANCE=5 CPU=61%

LOADING TIME: 16s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 (1920x1080)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x300-0x1
CPU CORES: 4
FULLSCREEN: OFF
AA:2X AF:8X SHDW:2048 BLUR:5
WORLD DETAIL: 4 SMOKE:3
PP: QLT:3 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:3 DOF:3 RAYS:1 HEAT:1
 
After reading that there were suppose to be some improvement to graphical optimization, I thought I'd take the v1.8 benchmark for a spin at the exact same settings as before.

I... noticed literally no difference in average performance. Some parts of the circuit were 1-2fps better, others were actually 1-2fps worse off, but mostly it was either exactly the same as before 1.8 or within the margin of error. I'm ignoring the random spike up to 120+fps because I never saw it appear in RivaTuner's statistics during the test run.


AC VERSION: 1.7.5 (x64)
POINTS: 9662
FPS: AVG=65 MIN=10 MAX=93 VARIANCE=1 CPU=42%

LOADING TIME: 17s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (2715x1527)
OS-Version: 6.1.7601 (Service Pack 1) 0x300-0x1
CPU CORES: 12
FULLSCREEN: OFF
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:10
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:5
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:1

AC VERSION: 1.8 (x64)
POINTS: 9966
FPS: AVG=68 MIN=11 MAX=127 VARIANCE=0 CPU=43%

LOADING TIME: 17s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (2715x1527)
OS-Version: 6.1.7601 (Service Pack 1) 0x300-0x1
CPU CORES: 12
FULLSCREEN: OFF
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:10
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:5
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:1
 
AC VERSION: 1.8 (x64)
POINTS: 15782
FPS: AVG=107 MIN=32 MAX=145 VARIANCE=3 CPU=63%

LOADING TIME: 12s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (1920x1080)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 8
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:5
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:4
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:4 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:1
 
Max settings

AC VERSION: 1.8 (x64)
POINTS: 14996
FPS: AVG=102 MIN=50 MAX=153 VARIANCE=0 CPU=54%

LOADING TIME: 13s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (1920x1080)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 4
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:8
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:5
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:1
 
All set to MAX. cpu i5 6500 no OC

AC VERSION: 1.10.2 (x64)
POINTS: 21831
FPS: AVG=149 MIN=91 MAX=190 VARIANCE=3 CPU=80%

LOADING TIME: 43s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (1920x1080)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 4
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:8
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:5
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:5 RAYS:1 HEAT:1
 
I had a question on this. I have an Alienware Alpha i3. I have a 4k TV. When I output with 4k resolution in Assetto, my FPS dips to 25-30 (I can live with because it looks gorgeous). However, my CPU is only at 20. When I go to 1080p, my FPS goes to 90, but my CPU is working at 80.

Is there anyway to get my CPU to work harder at 4k and carry some more of the load? Why does it carry more of the load at 1080p than at 4k.
 
No there is no way to make the cpu work harder, when fps are low the cpu does not need to make all those calculations as fast as when the fps are high. So this is normal. At 4k the gpu struggles and the cpu can relax compared to when the resolution is low or at lower quality settings.
 
Last edited:
Im new to this game, I didnt realize I could let the benchmarking lap test run all the way thru to give me final results. I was trying to judge it by trying to read the fluctuating numbers as it was calculating through the lap. lol. Guess I have to try this again.
 
Back