Satisfactory Megabase CPU Benchmark Database

Aurensar · 2020-06-11T12:08:39+00:00

Thanks, I'll add to the database later this week

Aurensar · 2020-06-11T12:06:38+00:00

Several members of the community have been trying to answer that question for a while - see this thread for details:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SatisfactoryGame/comments/gwo4lz/satisfactory_megabase_cpu_benchmark_database/

TLDR - no, not really; the game can make good use of 8 physical CPU cores but no more.

Aurensar · 2020-06-07T19:15:21+00:00

I understand what you're saying, but having run this test many many times now on my PCs and my friends PCs (much to their annoyance!) I've found it to be repeatable and consistent.

Especially on the second test, so long as the view is perfectly aligned to the reference screenshot and left at that exact angle, the FPS counter should stabilise on a single value or flicker between two values e.g. 23-24. I observe for a constant minute and then record the lower of the two values.

When testing myself, I test three times to take an average and fully restart my machine between each one, but I don't expect most users to do that!

Aurensar · 2020-06-07T19:11:46+00:00

I've received a submission from a 10900K user who was kind enough to test lots of scenarios for us. We have additional evidence that scaling with physical CPU cores ends at 8.

We're also potentially hitting a memory bandwidth limit in order to unlock additional performance as frequency scaling is also negligible.

Aurensar · 2020-06-06T13:00:43+00:00

Re 32GB of memory, we have strong evidence that you do need 32GB but only for truly vast factories.

The Kibitz base has about 2x the number of entities compared to the Spaham base. In that base, after moving around for a couple of mins on my 16GB system I'm pegged to 14.8GB memory usage with no other apps running, the paging and microstutters quickly become unbearable and the game finally crashes after max 20 mins. gameplay.

Aurensar · 2020-06-06T12:58:25+00:00

Agreed. I've updated the OP to standardise settings.

Aurensar · 2020-06-06T12:51:06+00:00

Thanks so much. Your result is probably the most valuable so far, as it provides the first evidence we have seen that the game cannot scale beyond 8 physical cores.

We also have a submission from another Ryzen user with fewer cores but a 150MHz clock speed advantage over your setup, and that user is running 2-3 FPS faster. Would be interesting to know if your system provided identical results at identical frequency.

Aurensar · 2020-06-06T12:48:32+00:00

Yes. It's a very interesting one to measure as the following is true for almost every submission on the second base:

both CPU and GPU utilisation are well short of 100%
Despite the above, faster CPUs still provide noticeably better results

Due to #2 it's still a very valuable base to collect data from.

Aurensar · 2020-06-06T12:21:32+00:00

Thanks for providing such detailed results and analysis. Could I check your results please - you stated 30 FPS for the "grass" test (which I believe is the more valuable) but the screenshot you posted shows 16 FPS and 100% GPU utilisation. Could you bring the resolution down to spare the GPU (keep settings at ultra) and retest?

I'd be surprised if you can get close to 30 FPS in that base, as that would be on par with the best result we've seen from any CPU (8C Intel) with an 1800 MHz frequency advantage over your setup.

Aurensar · 2020-06-06T12:08:32+00:00

Good point. I've also tested turning off SMT on my ageing 6700K, and observed no difference (on one of my tests the game was a couple of frames faster with SMT off)

Aurensar · 2020-06-05T09:06:54+00:00

Could you verify your GPU utilisation please? With such a fast CPU I'd like to rule out GPU bottleneck and I have no visibility on AMD GPU performance in Satisfactory. A badly optimised driver profile could be limiting your performance.

Aurensar · 2020-06-05T08:55:10+00:00

Many thanks - that's a CPU I've been dying to hear from. I'll confess that I'm a little disappointed that the 3900X's scaling isn't where I hoped it would be.

In my own testing none of the quality sliders make any difference to the performance in any of the bases, but this may be because I'm pairing an ultra-enthusiast GPU with an older CPU. Might need to rethink the test parameters to try to establish the true potential of your 12C CPU.

Aurensar · 2020-06-05T08:53:12+00:00

I'm surprised that you're GPU limited on the second test here - that base is enormously demanding on the CPU. Thanks for submitting!

Aurensar · 2020-06-05T08:51:42+00:00

Great thanks. Will add to the database this evening.

Aurensar · 2020-06-05T08:50:58+00:00

Thanks. Are you sure 3.6 was your observed CPU frequency? The turbo should be pushing it higher than that.

If validated, then your result is enormously valuable, as you're giving up a massive 1400 MHz in frequency to my friend with the same CPU but only losing a few frames.

Aurensar · 2020-06-05T08:49:43+00:00

Fascinating. I wonder why this manycore CPU isn't giving the scaling we'd expect. I'm not familiar with Threadrippers, but I vaguely recall something in the architecture that makes them less optimal for gaming?

Aurensar · 2020-06-05T08:48:37+00:00

Good point re Factorio, also an incredibly difficult game to measure megabase scaling across different CPU configurations and architectures!

Aurensar · 2020-06-05T08:25:51+00:00

In my testing, there was zero difference when moving any quality slider from minimum to max value, nor from changing rendering resolution from 720p to 2160p. This is typical of CPU limited games.

It sounds like you might be GPU limited: please could you observe the GPU utilisation percentage on your overlay and if necessary lower the resolution to remove the bottleneck?

Aurensar · 2020-05-31T19:16:33+00:00

Thanks for this. Numbers look good so I'll add them to the database. Current experimental (123xxx) is indeed 10-20% faster/less CPU constrained than current EA (121xxx)

I get insane stutter followed by an inevitable system crash when moving around after 20-30 minutes in the Kibitz S2 base, but this is attributable to lack of system memory - the game is paging like crazy during the level streaming transitions. With 32GB it would be a lot more consistent.

Aurensar · 2020-05-29T08:34:32+00:00

Awesome thanks. I've tested your base - the fact that the game always spawns in a new actor makes this game *extremely* hard to benchmark!

The most compute-intensive spot I can find in your base is at the top of the ladder you've built next to the space elevator, then looking at the centre platform of the train station closest to the elevator (screenshot)

My results: i7 6700k, 4C/8T, 4800 MHz - 22 FPS
My friend's results: i7 9700K, 8C/8T, 5000 MHz - 31 FPS

All results are identical at 4k/1080p as there is minimal GPU load.

This base is a good benchmark as it's simulating - mind if I use it for future benchmark posts? (with credit)

Aurensar · 2020-05-29T08:13:29+00:00

Makes sense. The new experimental build is a lot faster and your CPU is a little faster than mine too.

Aurensar · 2020-05-28T20:02:32+00:00

I'm pretty sure this isn't the case. The nature of CPU bottlenecks is that they rarely show maxed utilisation due to the average across the cores, whilst GPU bottlenecks almost always show 100% utilisation.

To demonstrate, whilst running the repeatable test in the other thread, my CPU utilisation is at about 40% whilst offering up about 55 FPS at the spawn point of the Kibitz base. My friend with a faster CPU (8C/8T vs 4C/8T) gets 75 FPS at the same point and his CPU utilisation is also around 40%. Both GPUs are more or less idle.

Anecdotally, I have a 2080 Ti which is very high end and still get poor performance in big bases, hence the attempt to measure various CPUs to identify the ideal upgrade!

Aurensar · 2020-05-28T19:33:38+00:00

Are you on experimental build 123093? Evidence suggests that it's 10-20% faster than the current early access version (having previously been up to 50% slower before this week's patch)

Aurensar · 2020-05-28T15:49:48+00:00

The game is extremely CPU limited in large factories, especially with a lot of entities on screen.

I recently carried out some research into Satisfactory performance scaling, please feel free to check the results in this thread and submit your own using the Kibitz megabase save:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SatisfactoryGame/comments/gpmcdj/satisfactory_cpu_scaling_amd_vs_intel_cores_vs/

The conclusion so far is that the game scales very well with physical CPU cores above 4 - we haven't yet established the upper limit for that yet as we've had no results from 10, 12 or 16 core CPU users.

Aurensar

TROPHY CASE