yugo23 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 After the release of January transfers patch, I am now in position to start FM15 benchmark thread. Last year we had some interesting results, and I am sure it will be the same this year. Last year I had to limit the number of playable nations to only European, but this year's save is with all 116 leagues from all 59 nations loaded. Total player count is 183.000. I left all detail level settings to their default values, except setting EPL also to full detail. How do you run this benchmark? First, download benchmark save game from one of the following mirrors: Mega Mediafire Uploaded Once loaded, ensure that auto save interval is disabled, and also set processing to Fast (Less Responsive), found at Preferences, More Match Settings. Optionally, restart your computer and close any unnecessary programs before running this benchmark. From my experience this has very small effect on processing times, if at all. Also, there was no difference in processing speed with/without huge graphics folder. After you load benchmark save game, just go on holiday for a week, and measure the time needed for processing. Post your results in the following format: CPU: Intel Celeron G550 CPU Frequency: 2600 MHz RAM: 8GB 1600 MHz CL9 OS: Win 7 64-bit Storage: SSD Time: 9 min 56 sec Results so far: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulBFCBlackpool1991 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I use a power saving plan when I play Football Manager because I usually get called away from the PC so I did a benchmark for that too: CPU: AMD FX-6300 CPU Frequency: 2500/4100 MHz RAM: 8GB 1333 MHz CL9 OS: Win 8.1 64-bit Storage: HDD Time: 9 min 40 sec/6 min 26 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairycull Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 CPU: Intel i7 5930k CPU Frequency: 3500 MHz RAM: 16 GB DDR4 2666 MHz OS: Win 8.1 64-bit Storage: SSD Time: 5 min 21 Sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I would suggest upping the detail level to maximum so that the test can give an indication as to how much of performance increase hyper-threading provides. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roykela Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 CPU: Intel i7-3820 CPU Frequency: 3600 MHz RAM: 8GB 1600 MHz CL9 OS: Win 7 Home 64-bit Storage: HDD Time: 6 min 10 sec Decided to do another one, after reading Alex's post, with detail level on full: Time: 27 min 13 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted March 2, 2015 Author Share Posted March 2, 2015 On most PCs upping the detail level to maximum would slow the processing speed at least five times. Imho more accurate processing just doesn't justify such enormous performance hit. Perhaps I will create another save game with just 5-10 leagues on full detail, for that purpose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBarbaric Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 wouldn't you need to set the default save game amount? if somebody has it on default to save each week and the other one has it once a year, the results would be heavily skewed, no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted March 2, 2015 Author Share Posted March 2, 2015 It's written in the first post. Processing takes one week, and auto-save interval should be disabled. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnUrF Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 CPU: Intel i7-920 CPU Frequency: 2660 MHz RAM: 6GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 OS: Vista 64 Storage: SSD Time: 7 min 12 sec E: Memory settings corrected. -SnUrF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauley Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 CPU: Intel Core i5-4590 CPU Frequency: 3700MHz RAM: 8GB 1600 MHz DDR3 CL9 OS: Win 7 64-bit Storage: SSD Time: 4 min 53 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabioke Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Have you sold your 2500k Yugo? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CFuller Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 CPU: Intel Core i3 330M CPU Frequency: 2133 MHz RAM: 8GB DDR3 OS: Win 7 64-bit Storage: HDD Time: 13 min 2 sec :o Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 Have you sold your 2500k Yugo? Yes, I sold it, looking to buy 4790K this year. Tomorrow I am getting a new toy - E5440 771 Xeon, hopefully I'll get it to 4+ GHz with MSI P45 Platinum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabioke Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 CPU: Intel i5 2500K CPU Frequency: 3300 MHz RAM: 8GB 1333 MHz OS: Win 7 64-bit Storage: HDD Time: 6 min 13 sec I will test some other configurations in the near future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yezzko Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 CPU: AMD A8-7600 @ 65W TDP CPU Frequency: 3100 MHz RAM: 8GB 2133 MHz CL11 OS: Win 8.1 64-bit Storage: HDD Time: 10 min 42 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues_r_best Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 CPU: Intel Pentium G3420 CPU Frequency: 3200 MHz RAM: 8GB 1600 MHz CL9 OS: Win 7 64-bit Storage: SSD Time: 6 min 48 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairycull Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 CPU: Intel Pentium G3420CPU Frequency: 3200 MHz RAM: 8GB 1600 MHz CL9 OS: Win 7 64-bit Storage: SSD Time: 6 min 48 sec A fantastic time fora £60 cpu! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues_r_best Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 A fantastic time fora £60 cpu! Not even that much, will have to get a G3258 and see what an overclock would do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted March 8, 2015 Author Share Posted March 8, 2015 CPU: Intel Xeon E5440 CPU Frequency: 2833 MHz RAM: 4GB 800 MHz CL5 OS: Win 7 64-bit Storage: SSD Time: 9 min 9 sec and OCed CPU: Intel Xeon E5440 CPU Frequency: 3800 MHz RAM: 4GB 896 MHz CL5 OS: Win 7 64-bit Storage: SSD Time: 6 min 35 sec Not bad at all for a 40 $ chip (at launch it was 700+ $). I hope I will break 4 GHz barrier, some RAM related BIOS bugs are holding me back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabioke Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 CPU: Intel Xeon E5440CPU Frequency: 2833 MHz RAM: 4GB 800 MHz CL5 OS: Win 7 64-bit Storage: SSD Time: 9 min 9 sec and OCed CPU: Intel Xeon E5440 CPU Frequency: 3800 MHz RAM: 4GB 896 MHz CL5 OS: Win 7 64-bit Storage: SSD Time: 6 min 35 sec Not bad at all for a 40 $ chip (at launch it was 700+ $). I hope I will break 4 GHz barrier, some RAM related BIOS bugs are holding me back. Great results for a premium CPU from 2008. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 CPU: i7-920 @ 4000MHz RAM: 6GB 1537Mhz OS: Win 7 64bit Storage: HDD RIme: 5m32s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 CPU Frequency: 3200 MHz RAM: 4GB 800 MHz CL5 OS: Win 7 64-bit Storage: HDD Time: 9 min 37 sec and OCed CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 CPU Frequency: 3800 MHz RAM: 4GB 800 MHz CL5 OS: Win 7 64-bit Storage: HDD Time: 8 min 40 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues_r_best Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Any chance of a save game with full detail to see if it does make a difference as Alex said? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roykela Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Any chance of a save game with full detail to see if it does make a difference as Alex said? The game took about x4.5 longer to process one week when i changed it to full detail, using OP's save. Hope more people will give it a go for comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabioke Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 The game took about x4.5 longer to process one week when i changed it to full detail, using OP's save.Hope more people will give it a go for comparison. I will try it tomorrow if I find some time... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwnelson Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 CPU: AMD Athlon II X2 250 CPU Frequency: 3000 MHz RAM: 4GB DDR3 1600 CL9 OS: Win 7 64-bit Storage: HDD Time: 12 min 41 sec (12 min 21 sec on a 2nd run) It's a budget HTPC... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues_r_best Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 The game took about x4.5 longer to process one week when i changed it to full detail, using OP's save.Hope more people will give it a go for comparison. Could I just ask to make sure, you used the OP save game and then changed the leagues to be full detail before going on holiday for a week rather than starting a new game with the leagues in full detail and going on holiday for a week? It might have taken so much longer for you because it was working on setting up the game/leagues/managers shortlist stuff it does and then working through the week, as setting up a game using the same parameters as OP (just in full detail) and holidaying doesn't take me that long. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roykela Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I did use the OP save game. Changed the leagues to full detail for then to go on a holiday for a week. I'll try it again then, setting it up myself with the same parameters as OP, in full detail. See if there's a difference. I shall return with the results. -Edit- Although i might need to know what database size and (if applicable) additional players were loaded. At the moment, when trying to load a new game, i'm missing about 11k players. And that's with a huge database. 15k with large database. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
afailed10 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 macbook pro 5mins 50s window mode while browsing and a couple apps open only. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabioke Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 macbook pro5mins 50s window mode while browsing and a couple apps open only. Strange results can you provide more specs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
afailed10 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Strange results can you provide more specs? 15" retina yosemite 10.10.2 16gb ram 512gb ssd pci-e core i7 2.3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hubx Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 CPU: Intel Core i5-2410M @ 2.30GHz (laptop) CPU Frequency: 2300 MHz RAM: 8GB 1600 MHz CL9 OS: Win 7 64-bit Storage: SSD 256 GB Time: 8 min 17 sec Is this normal? edit: 2nd test: time: 8 min 30 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 I guess it's normal for lower clocked mobile CPU. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurnRaisin Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 CPU: Intel i7 5930kCPU Frequency: 3500 MHz RAM: 16 GB DDR4 2666 MHz OS: Win 8.1 64-bit Storage: SSD Time: 5 min 21 Sec Since you have the highest specs I noticed, do you mind checking in that database what sort of loading times do you have when in player search, as in the pauses between changing the search parameters, add your self as a manager with 20/20 CA/PA scouting into a big team. I'm not sure if it was a patch or maybe youth players started getting generated but I noticed in one of my saves that it takes about 12-17secs to get into player search then the same again each time I changed the parameters. If I add a manager with 1/1 CA/PA judging on a low rep team, its instant so its clearly got to do with the size of your database and how much of said database you know about. I have lot of leagues running but have pretty decent PC and only noticed this recently Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanid Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 hi all ive been playing FM since 2007 and ive tried a lot of configurations to find out what makes FM run faster, e.g. more ram, ram disk, ssd, cpu with higher clockspeed or cpu with more cache. after lots of testings, i'd like to say that the bottleneck of fm processing speed is the cache of cpu (of course the clockspeed matters, however, when considering 4GHz i7 8Mb cache and 3GHz Xeon 10 Mb Cache cpus, it would be a better value for money cpu if i chose the xeon one) it would be great to know the optimum configuration for FM15, i.e. the clockspeed and cache which runs FM15 the fastest and the faster clockspeed and more cache would not increase the speed of FM significantly. hopefully i will get a Intel Xeon 4 Cores 4 Threads E3-1220V2 3.1GHz (8M Cache) for FM16 when the steam link machine is launched. ps. if you'd like to try the power of 8mb cache, dont bother to buy Intel Core i7-4770 Haswell (3.4GHz, 8M Cache). look for Intel Xeon 4 Cores 4 Threads E3-1220V2 3.1GHz (8M Cache), much cheaper! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted April 3, 2015 Author Share Posted April 3, 2015 Table with results we have so far added to the first post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted April 8, 2015 Author Share Posted April 8, 2015 So your CPU was at default settings? 4.0 GHz - 4.4 GHz turbo? It's not easy to implement this in the table for easy comparison, as you can use turbo speed with anything between 2 and 4 cores. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty114 Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I just ran this, How did that 4790k get 4 minute 20 seconds. CPU: I7 5820k 6 Cores/12 Threads CPU Frequency: 4400 MHz RAM: 16Gb DDR4 2666Mhz 14-14-14-35-1T OS: Win 8.1 64-bit Storage: OS SSD Game on HD Time: 5 Minutes 10 seconds Recorded time with a stopwatch on my phone. Edit: Restarted and tried again, got it down to 4 Minutes and 7 seconds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Due to the test being run on minimum match detail & only for a week I imagine the advantages of the skt2011 chips offer do not come into play, I'd expect that chipset family to come into their own with leagues run in full detail & for a much longer period of time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty114 Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I upgraded from a 4790k @ 4.5Ghz to a 5820k, I have noticed a good performance increase with the haswell-e chip in Fm15. When doing this 1 week test only 1 thread is loaded and the other 11 are doing nothing, in my normal game with loads of leagues at high detail levels all 12 cores get to at least 50% load at the same time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 That's the thing, the test parameters are weighted against Haswell-E & its predecessors, the fact that my aging Bloomfield cpu can still post a more than respectable time is testament to that fact, on this test I think the cpu load was no more than 13% across 4 cores. My own save is almost all leagues (a few minor Asian leagues are not loaded) & every competition other than youth & reserve leagues are run on full detail, if we were to use that setup & run it for a full season he result spread across the various i7 cpu's would be much wider. Not sure I would have done 4790k to 5820k myself, would have tried for the 5930k just to justify what is essentially a full system upgrade as there probably weren't too many components that were carried over to your Haswell-E rig. My opinion is not with much though as I'm caught in the no-mans land of time to upgrade but not sure whether to go for it now or wait for Broadwell-E as FM is the only game that will make full use of the -E chip & my FM15 playing time will significantly reduce over the coming months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty114 Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I only took a £50 loss for the 4790k parts because I sold them to a family member so IMO it was worth it and I wanted to upgrade due to haswell-e having a soldered HS/die, I can push my overclock more with my custom water loop. I didn't feel like delidding my 4790k. The encoding performance is much better aswell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 All told not a bad deal then, you've got me looking at part prices & there has been a tempting drop in some of the ancillary components, very tempted to dust of uncle visa but I shall remain strong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 Due to the test being run on minimum match detail & only for a week I imagine the advantages of the skt2011 chips offer do not come into play, I'd expect that chipset family to come into their own with leagues run in full detail & for a much longer period of time. I agree with that, but what is the purpose of full detail settings if it slows down your game at least 5 times? I am not sure if even 30% slowdown would be justified. What exactly do we gain with full detail? Also, these are default game settings, I believe most people never bother to change them. I upgraded from a 4790k @ 4.5Ghz to a 5820k, I have noticed a good performance increase with the haswell-e chip in Fm15. When doing this 1 week test only 1 thread is loaded and the other 11 are doing nothing, in my normal game with loads of leagues at high detail levels all 12 cores get to at least 50% load at the same time. All threads must have been utilized during English Premier and Championship matchdays? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiotom92 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 CPU: Intel Core i 5200U CPU Frequency: 2600 MHz RAM: 4GB 1600 Mhz OS: Win 8.1 64-bit Storage: SSHD Time: 8 min 11 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudel.dietrich Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 CPU: Intel i7 4800MQ CPU Frequency: 3900 MHZ OC RAM: 32 GB DDR3 1333 OS: Win 7 64-bit Storage: HDD 7200 RPM in Raid 0 Time: 5 min 16 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 Serious processing power for a notebook. What is the exact model? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudel.dietrich Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Serious processing power for a notebook. What is the exact model? Thank you for the compliment. I purchased the case (and LED screen) and motherboard from MSi and then put together the rest myself. I purchased the GPU and CPU as OEM parts. Putting together a laptop these days is not impossible, but if I could do it again I would choose a pre built model. It took a while to put together due to having to wait for the parts. The case was hard to get since places do sell just the cases but they do not openly advertise it. I also had to wait up to 8 weeks for the CPU and GPU. Places do sell individual components to end users but again they do not advertise it much since most notebook parts go to sellers. The GPU is an Nvidia 780m which is comparable to a desktop 680. It is a really nice system and I have been happy with it. It is comparable to a desktop from late 13 or early 14. I built it with the intention of being a desktop replacement and it has done the trick. My work has me in London 4-5 days a week and then on the weekends I fly back to Switzerland with be with my GF and children. So having a hefty notebook is nice since it is my 'desktop' for a good portion of the week. It has 1.5 TB of storage and I removed the blu-ray drive and put in a internal caddy and a 750 GB SSD. The memory is pretty slow on it. I have tried to OC the memory to 1600 and then 1500 and finally just 1400 but it was unstable at every turn. I finally left it at 1333. I did OC the CPU and GPU which produces more heat than the memory OC, so go figure. If you want details on the exact case model or anything else, I would be happy to provide them. Thanks again for the compliment. It is always nice when someone is nice enough to give a compliment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I agree with that, but what is the purpose of full detail settings if it slows down your game at least 5 times? I am not sure if even 30% slowdown would be justified. What exactly do we gain with full detail? Also, these are default game settings, I believe most people never bother to change them.The quick match engine using a very basic calculation to decide the result & scoreline, club rep & squad CA average are the main two, this can affect the realism (see Messi & Ronaldo not scoring enough) & for me it gives my side an unfair advantage when competing in continental competitions as the playing field (match processing) is not a level one.I agree with that, but what is the purpose of full detail settings if it slows down your game at least 5 times? I am not sure if even 30% slowdown would be justified. What exactly do we gain with full detail? Also, these are default game settings, I believe most people never bother to change them.The quick engine does not use hyperthreading & based on the cpu architecture it might do all the work on a single cpu core, regardless of game size my i7 does not exceed 13% cpu load when using the quick engine, full detail ensures that the full horsepower of the cpu is used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugo23 Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 From my experience unfair advantage in continental competitions comes from the fact that top clubs are not run as good as irl. I haven't noticed that it became any tougher when I played with top leagues on full detail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.