FM21 Performance Benchmarking Thread

[craiigman]

20 hours ago, joshpmilton said:

Type: Laptop

Model: Lenovo Legion 5

CPU Model: AMD Ryzen 7 4800H

CPU Base Frequency: 2.9GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4,20 GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 3200Mhz

GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660Ti 6GB

Graphics Level in 3D: High

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A: 2 min 12 sec

Benchmark B: 10 min 47 sec

Benchmark C: 12 min 52 sec

Benchmark D: 25 min 12 sec

Interesting - benchmark a slower than the M1, but benchmark d 2 minutes better than the M1. 

[Smurf]

1 hour ago, craiigman said:

Interesting - benchmark a slower than the M1, but benchmark d 2 minutes better than the M1. 

M1 single core performance is the highest on the market at the moment, and FM thrives in the single core. 

D benchmark was probably due to having more cores/threads available.

M1 chip is reportedly at 3.2ghz - so slightly faster than the 4800H.

But if the M1 chip is the first for Apple then the future is looking good for them.

Might push Intel and AMD to even greater processors now. It's an interesting battle.

 

[Marki]

Type: Laptop

Model: Lenovo Legion 5

CPU Model: AMD Ryzen 4800H

CPU Base Frequency: 2.9GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.20 GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 3200Mhz

GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

Graphics Level in 3D: very High

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A: 02 min 20 Sec

Benchmark B: 10 min 49 Sec

Benchmark C: 13 min 35 Sec

Benchmark D: 26 min 59 Sec

 

[Damse1994]

5 hours ago, Smurf said:

M1 single core performance is the highest on the market at the moment, and FM thrives in the single core. 

D benchmark was probably due to having more cores/threads available.

M1 chip is reportedly at 3.2ghz - so slightly faster than the 4800H.

But if the M1 chip is the first for Apple then the future is looking good for them.

Might push Intel and AMD to even greater processors now. It's an interesting battle.

 

My understanding is that when you run FM21 it’s through the emulation and the processor looses some speed. When they ran the benchmark through emulation the performance was around 2,4 ghz. 
 

https://www.google.dk/amp/s/wccftech.com/m1-macbook-air-x86-emulation-faster-all-mac-models/amp/

[Smurf]

40 minutes ago, Damse1994 said:

My understanding is that when you run FM21 it’s through the emulation and the processor looses some speed. When they ran the benchmark through emulation the performance was around 2,4 ghz. 
 

https://www.google.dk/amp/s/wccftech.com/m1-macbook-air-x86-emulation-faster-all-mac-models/amp/

I don't think it losing speed - I think the base speed is 2.4ghz and it's turbo speed is 3.2ghz. 

It's always running through the emulation, Rosetta 2, as FM is on the x86 architecture, then FM has to emulated through Rosetta 2. Until FM is optimised for the chip. But rumours are @EdL I think said (sorry if not you) it's running seemlessly on the M1 chip through emulation.

 

Of course it's faster than every other Mac - Apple weren't really putting in high-end Intel processors into their machines. 

Most were using a U type processor which is known to throttle and have low TDPs. 

Some MacBook pros (airs) had higher end Intel - like the 9980HK (which is an i9 but that doesn't mean much performs same as an i7 10875H)

I see the boldened part is mentioned in the Review. 

 

Most people don't understand Intel chips - and when they say it's better than i9 processor people are like "WOW" but in reality it's not that impressive. 

All it really tells me is that Apple were putting in lower end chips to their products and charging premium prices. 

[EdL]

2 hours ago, Smurf said:

I don't think it losing speed - I think the base speed is 2.4ghz and it's turbo speed is 3.2ghz. 

It's always running through the emulation, Rosetta 2, as FM is on the x86 architecture, then FM has to emulated through Rosetta 2. Until FM is optimised for the chip. But rumours are @EdL I think said (sorry if not you) it's running seemlessly on the M1 chip through emulation.

 

Of course it's faster than every other Mac - Apple weren't really putting in high-end Intel processors into their machines. 

Most were using a U type processor which is known to throttle and have low TDPs. 

Some MacBook pros (airs) had higher end Intel - like the 9980HK (which is an i9 but that doesn't mean much performs same as an i7 10875H)

I see the boldened part is mentioned in the Review. 

 

Most people don't understand Intel chips - and when they say it's better than i9 processor people are like "WOW" but in reality it's not that impressive. 

All it really tells me is that Apple were putting in lower end chips to their products and charging premium prices. 

Performance hit of the Rosetta seems negligible (vs Intel) for FM which is pretty amazing - obviously we don't know yet how fast it might be if natively complied, but that is a large job because of how our match engine would need to give the same results between x86 & Arm CPU's - given they handle floating point maths differently.

the 9980HK was basically the top of the line Intel laptop CPU at the time.

[kevhamster]

Type: Desktop

Model: Custom build

CPU Model: AMD Ryzen 5 3600

CPU Base Frequency: 3.6 GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.2 GHz

RAM: 16GB 

RAM Clockspeed: 3200MHz

GPU: Nvidia Geforce 1660 Super

Graphics Level in 3D: Highest

Storage Type: HDD (7200RPM)

Benchmark A: 2m 7s
Benchmark B: 9m 1s
Benchmark C: 12m 1s

[Damse1994]

2 hours ago, Smurf said:

I don't think it losing speed - I think the base speed is 2.4ghz and it's turbo speed is 3.2ghz. 

It's always running through the emulation, Rosetta 2, as FM is on the x86 architecture, then FM has to emulated through Rosetta 2. Until FM is optimised for the chip. But rumours are @EdL I think said (sorry if not you) it's running seemlessly on the M1 chip through emulation.

 

Of course it's faster than every other Mac - Apple weren't really putting in high-end Intel processors into their machines. 

Most were using a U type processor which is known to throttle and have low TDPs. 

Some MacBook pros (airs) had higher end Intel - like the 9980HK (which is an i9 but that doesn't mean much performs same as an i7 10875H)

I see the boldened part is mentioned in the Review. 

 

Most people don't understand Intel chips - and when they say it's better than i9 processor people are like "WOW" but in reality it's not that impressive. 

All it really tells me is that Apple were putting in lower end chips to their products and charging premium prices. 

You’re probably right, I’m not a tech guy, so I probably take trust these benchmarks/reviews waaaay too much, which states that the M1 takes an performance hit emulation through Rosetta 2.

 

 

 

[GuitarMan]

20 hours ago, EdL said:

8GB should be plenty enough unless you had lots of other stuff open at the same time anyway (could always monitor memory usage in task manager while running)

I think I may have found some of my issue - turns out although I was powering down at the end of each day - the computer was still classing this as up time, seems quicker at other stuff after a restart (teach me to follow my own advice when at work - turn it off and back on again) - will redo the benchmark at some point  

[Grumblewatcher]

Type: Laptop

Model: ASUS TUF Gaming A15 FX506IV-BQ010T

CPU Model: AMD Ryzen 9 4900H

CPU Base Frequency: 3.3GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.4GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 3200Mhz

GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 - 6GB

Graphics Level in 3D: Very high

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A - 2:14

Benchmark B - 10:50

Benchmark C - 13:52

Benchmark D - 26:45

[AhMostyn]

Type: Laptop

Model: HP Pavilion Gaming 15-ec1007na

CPU Model: AMD Ryzen 5 4600H

CPU Base Frequency: 3.0GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.0GHz

RAM: 16GB (upgraded from 8 GB)

RAM Clockspeed: 3194MHz

GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 1650 - 4GB

Graphics Level in 3D: High

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A - 2:21

Benchmark B - 10:57

Benchmark C - 14:39

Benchmark D - 31:42

[SeaCarrot]

Type: Custom Desktop

Model: Custom

CPU Model: AMD Ryzen 5 3600

CPU Base Frequency: 4.2GHz All core overclock

CPU Turbo Frequency: NA

RAM: 16GB 

RAM Clockspeed: 3200MHz

GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 1080ti 11GB

Graphics Level in 3D: Very High

Storage Type: NVMe SSD

 

Benchmark A - 2:06

Benchmark B - 8:49

[bric6]

Type: Laptop

Model: Lenovo Thinkpad L390 Yoga R90TV0BV

CPU Model: Intel i7-8565U

CPU Base Frequency: 1.8GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.6GHz

RAM: 16GB DDR4

RAM Clockspeed: 2400MHz

GPU: Intel UHD Graphics 620

Graphics Level in 3D: Medium

Storage Type: SSD

Benchmark A - 3:16

Benchmark B - 13:19

Benchmark C - 22:34

[ScrambledEgg]

My quest to find a system that can run FM at max detail/database continues with a test on another ridiculously expensive system (about 4 grand using ebay parts, approx 20 grand when brand new), but with disappointing results.

12:15 for benchmark C 

 

[Daveincid]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb ScrambledEgg:

My quest to find a system that can run FM at max detail/database continues with a test on another ridiculously expensive system (about 4 grand using ebay parts, approx 20 grand when brand new), but with disappointing results.

12:15 for benchmark C 

 

Benchmark D then?^^

[EdL]

5 hours ago, ScrambledEgg said:

My quest to find a system that can run FM at max detail/database continues with a test on another ridiculously expensive system (about 4 grand using ebay parts, approx 20 grand when brand new), but with disappointing results.

12:15 for benchmark C 

 

Not super unexpected server CPU's are not designed for games really! They are designed for running lots of VM's

[ScrambledEgg]

1 hour ago, EdL said:

Not super unexpected server CPU's are not designed for games really! They are designed for running lots of VM's

Yeah that's essentially what this server is for, I wasn't expecting it to crush it but was expecting better given the boost frequency is 4Ghz but the small period of 100% usage in the image is about all it ever did.

Do you think FM would ever be able to use a GPU for crunching the numbers given this is quite a common usage for them these days?

[EdL]

1 minute ago, ScrambledEgg said:

Yeah that's essentially what this server is for, I wasn't expecting it to crush it but was expecting better given the boost frequency is 4Ghz but the small period of 100% usage in the image is about all it ever did.

Do you think FM would ever be able to use a GPU for crunching the numbers given this is quite a common usage for them these days?

Its not really something on our roadmap so I wouldn't expect it any time soon

[ScrambledEgg]

Just now, EdL said:

Its not really something on our roadmap so I wouldn't expect it any time soon

Yeah I wouldn't have expected it to be honest, I suppose the next few generations of CPUs are starting to make huge databases and league detail more viable.

[bananahk]

Type: Desktop

Model: Custom build

CPU Model: R5 - 3600

CPU Base Frequency: 3.9GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 3.90 GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 3200Mhz

GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 960M - 2GB

Graphics Level in 3D: High

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A: 02 min 13 Sec

Benchmark B: 09 min 52 Sec

Benchmark C: 13 min 02 Sec

Benchmark D: NA

[craiigman]

On 25/11/2020 at 20:05, Brother Ben said:

Benchmark Results - DOWNLOAD SPREADSHEET HERE

 

Benchmark A Combined Results

 

Benchmark B Combined Results

 

Benchmark C Combined Results

 

Benchmark D Combined Results

 

Hey mate on benchmark a it has my M1 time at 2:22 but it was 2:02

edit: have re done benchmark a and 02:02 is correct.

benchmark b: 09:23

benchmark c: 12:46

Edited December 8, 2020 by craiigman

[craiigman]

Fully updated

[Brother Ben]

8 hours ago, craiigman said:

Hey mate on benchmark a it has my M1 time at 2:22 but it was 2:02

edit: have re done benchmark a and 02:02 is correct.

benchmark b: 09:23

benchmark c: 12:46

No worries I'll update it this week, thanks for the benchmarks  

[MoosAlbo]

Type: Laptop

Model: Late 2020 MacBook Air 13" (base model)

CPU Model: M1

CPU Base Frequency: n/a

CPU Turbo Frequency: n/a

RAM: 8GB

RAM Clockspeed: n/a

GPU: M1

Graphics Level in 3D: High

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A: 02:02

Benchmark B: 11:23

 

The MacBook was nog plugged in and at around 43% battery. In the second benchmark it got warm but not hot. If you compare benchmark B to the MBP M1 than I think benchmark B shows the thermal throttling of the Air. (usually after 9 minutes of heavy load)

oh and since the Air has no fan it was completely silent.

Edited December 9, 2020 by MoosAlbo

[Tyggis]

Type: Laptop

Model: Lenovo Legion 5

CPU Model: AMD Ryzen 5 4600H

CPU Base Frequency: 3.0GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.0 GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 3200Mhz

GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 6GB

Graphics Level in 3D: Very High

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A: 2 min 47 sec

Benchmark B: 12 min 37 sec

Benchmark C: 17 min 05 sec

[krissmed]

Type: Desktop

Model: Custom

CPU Model: i5 - 9600K

CPU Base Frequency: 3.7GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.6GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 1066MHz

GPU: Sapphire Pulse Radeon 5700XT

Graphics Level in 3D: High

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A: 02 min 25 Sec

Benchmark B: 10 min 02 sec

Benchmark C: 15 min 05 Sec

[julesjoosten]

Type: Laptop

Model: Lenovo Ideapad 330

CPU Model: Intel Core i7-8750H

CPU Base Frequency: 2.2GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.10 GHz

RAM: 8GB

RAM Clockspeed: 2400Mhz

GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050

Graphics Level in 3D: High

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A: 03 min 01 Sec

Benchmark B: 12 min 54 Sec

Benchmark C: ???

 

[jonpt]

On 01/12/2020 at 10:28, maaartio said:

Hey, updating my score after slightly overclocking the RAM (Ryzen 5900x stock, RAM 3200 MHZ)
D: 13 min 34 sec.

Hi mate, what timings have you got your RAM running at? 

[jonpt]

Type: Desktop

Model: Custom made - Crosshair 8 Impact. Custom Loop

CPU Model: Ryzen 9 5950x

CPU Base Frequency: 3.6 GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.9 GHz (With PBO 5.1ghz)

RAM: 32GB

RAM Clockspeed: 3600Mhz CL16

GPU: Watercooled Strix 2080s

Storage Type: NVME 1tb

 

Benchmark A: 1 min 22 sec

Benchmark B: 6m 0 sec

Benchmark C: 7 min 05 sec

Benchmark D: 13 min 07 sec

 

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by jonpt

[maaartio]

@jonpt
Hello, sorry, but I don't speak English. I test the RAM all the time and it's not the optimal setting yet. Waiting for the new UEFI AGESA for my gigaybet x570. At the moment my record in D is: 13 minutes 25 seconds (3600 14-14-14-14-28). See screen. I do not remember the previous timings of 3200 and 13 min. 34 sec

[jonpt]

1 hour ago, maaartio said:

@jonpt
Hello, sorry, but I don't speak English. I test the RAM all the time and it's not the optimal setting yet. Waiting for the new UEFI AGESA for my gigaybet x570. At the moment my record in D is: 13 minutes 25 seconds (3600 14-14-14-14-28). See screen. I do not remember the previous timings of 3200 and 13 min. 34 sec

Thank you! I wanted to see how much the timings made a difference. It shows to me that your better memory timings give you more of a boost than I get for having 16 cores. 

[gooseta]

Type: Laptop

Model: Dell XPS 15 7590

CPU Model: i7-9750H

CPU Base Frequency: 2.6ghz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.5GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 2666Mhz

GPU: NVIDIA GTX 1650

Graphics Level in 3D: High

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A: 2 min 24 sec

Benchmark B: 10 min 49 sec

Benchmark C  : 15min 09 sec

Edited December 10, 2020 by gooseta

[Damse1994]

 

Type: Laptop

Model: Late 2020 MacBook Pro 13"

CPU Model: M1

CPU Base Frequency: n/a

CPU Turbo Frequency: n/a

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: n/a

GPU: M1

Graphics Level in 3D: High

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A: 02:00 (Pretty much on the dot)

Benchmark B: 09:21 

Benchmark C: 12:10

Benchmark D: N/A 

 

Pretty much the same results as @craiigman's with 8 gb of ram. Still very much impressed as i've upgraded from a 2014 model, which i tried the benchmark A on with a time of 07:20.

[Smurf]

45 minutes ago, Damse1994 said:

 

 

Type: Laptop

Model: Late 2020 MacBook Pro 13"

CPU Model: M1

CPU Base Frequency: n/a

CPU Turbo Frequency: n/a

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: n/a

GPU: M1

Graphics Level in 3D: High

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A: 02:00 (Pretty much on the dot)

Benchmark B: 09:21 

Benchmark C: 12:10

Benchmark D: N/A 

Great results, showing RAM not really playing a part in benchmark speeds. 

---------8---------------------------------------16----------------------------

Benchmark A: 02:02 -----------Benchmark A: 02:00

Benchmark B: 09:23 -----------Benchmark B: 09:21 

Benchmark C: 12:46 -----------Benchmark C: 12:10

Benchmark D: 27:47 -----------N/A 

 

Be interesting to see the results of the Benchmark D and if RAM is playing a part? 

It seems it might have had with Benchmark C? 

 

45 minutes ago, Damse1994 said:

Pretty much the same results as @craiigman's with 8 gb of ram. Still very much impressed as i've upgraded from a 2014 model, which i tried the benchmark A on with a time of 07:20.

 

Not surprisng really given it's 7 years old and the processor in the 2014 model is one of these
MacBook Pro 13" "Core i5" 2.6 Mid-20142.6 GHz Core i5 (I5-4278U)

MacBook Pro 13" "Core i5" 2.8 Mid-20142.8 GHz Core i5 (I5-4308U

)MacBook Pro 13" "Core i7" 3.0 Mid-20143.0 GHz Core i7 (I7-4578U)

Something I wouldn't recommend for FM on a PC. But adequate on the Mac OS.

[Damse1994]

13 minutes ago, Smurf said:

Great results, showing RAM not really playing a part in benchmark speeds. 

---------8---------------------------------------16----------------------------

Benchmark A: 02:02 -----------Benchmark A: 02:00

Benchmark B: 09:23 -----------Benchmark B: 09:21 

Benchmark C: 12:46 -----------Benchmark C: 12:10

Benchmark D: 27:47 -----------N/A 

 

Be interesting to see the results of the Benchmark D and if RAM is playing a part? 

It seems it might have had with Benchmark C? 

 

 

Not surprisng really given it's 7 years old and the processor in the 2014 model is one of these
MacBook Pro 13" "Core i5" 2.6 Mid-20142.6 GHz Core i5 (I5-4278U)

MacBook Pro 13" "Core i5" 2.8 Mid-20142.8 GHz Core i5 (I5-4308U

)MacBook Pro 13" "Core i7" 3.0 Mid-20143.0 GHz Core i7 (I7-4578U)

Something I wouldn't recommend for FM on a PC. But adequate on the Mac OS.

I agree with your point that the ram doesn’t have the biggest impact. And the cost of 200$ extra really not worth it. 
 

My old had the first you’re listing. I have really limited knowledge of computers and hardware, so didn’t expect that big a difference in performance. 

[Smurf]

1 minute ago, Damse1994 said:

I agree with your point that the ram doesn’t have the biggest impact. And the cost of 200$ extra really not worth it. 
 

My old had the first you’re listing. I have really limited knowledge of computers and hardware, so didn’t expect that big a difference in performance. 

Well the M1 chip is certainly a very good processor. As said before, if you want a portable 13 inch computer for FM then there's nothing better on the Market at the moment other than the Apple Macbook 13 inch with the M1 chip.

Price for me is outrageous and I don't think it's worth it - it is coming up 13 inch macbook pro - 16gb ram - 512gb hard drive
€1,877.95
 

When i can ge this for cheaper

Chassis & Display
Lafité Pro Series: 14" Matte Full HD 120 Hz 72% NTSC LED Widescreen (1920x1080)
Processor (CPU)
Intel® Core™ i7 Quad Core Processor i7-1165G7 (2.8GHz, 4.7GHz Turbo)
Memory (RAM)
16GB Corsair 2400MHz SODIMM DDR4 (2 x 8GB)
Graphics Card
NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1650 Ti - 4.0GB GDDR5 Video RAM - DirectX® 12.1
1^st M.2 SSD Drive
500GB SAMSUNG 970 EVO PLUS M.2, PCIe NVMe (up to 3500MB/R, 3200MB/W)

Price: €1,209.00 including VAT and Delivery

Unique URL to re-configure: https://www.pcspecialist.ie/saved-configurations/lafite-pro-II-14/4gd9SZeMwY/

Even for FM it's overkill - ok it's not quite as good as the Mac - but it's cheaper and would perform extremely well for FM.

It even has a dedicated graphics card - something the Mac hasn't got.

In terms of portablity - it would be very portable.

 

If I remove the graphics card - and go to 8gb RAM - it comes in under €1000

For the sake of a FM - I'd rather save €800.

 

[Damse1994]

5 minutes ago, Smurf said:

Well the M1 chip is certainly a very good processor. As said before, if you want a portable 13 inch computer for FM then there's nothing better on the Market at the moment other than the Apple Macbook 13 inch with the M1 chip.

Price for me is outrageous and I don't think it's worth it - it is coming up 13 inch macbook pro - 16gb ram - 512gb hard drive
€1,877.95
 

When i can ge this for cheaper

Chassis & Display
Lafité Pro Series: 14" Matte Full HD 120 Hz 72% NTSC LED Widescreen (1920x1080)
Processor (CPU)
Intel® Core™ i7 Quad Core Processor i7-1165G7 (2.8GHz, 4.7GHz Turbo)
Memory (RAM)
16GB Corsair 2400MHz SODIMM DDR4 (2 x 8GB)
Graphics Card
NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1650 Ti - 4.0GB GDDR5 Video RAM - DirectX® 12.1
1^st M.2 SSD Drive
500GB SAMSUNG 970 EVO PLUS M.2, PCIe NVMe (up to 3500MB/R, 3200MB/W)

Price: €1,209.00 including VAT and Delivery

Unique URL to re-configure: https://www.pcspecialist.ie/saved-configurations/lafite-pro-II-14/4gd9SZeMwY/

Even for FM it's overkill - ok it's not quite as good as the Mac - but it's cheaper and would perform extremely well for FM.

It even has a dedicated graphics card - something the Mac hasn't got.

In terms of portablity - it would be very portable.

 

If I remove the graphics card - and go to 8gb RAM - it comes in under €1000

For the sake of a FM - I'd rather save €800.

 

I really don’t disagree with you on this one, it’s a personal preference. I don’t think I ever had a windows computer I was as happy for as my MBP.

 

I was very happy with the laptop my workplace provided for me, but it is strictly for work and after a year I had to have a new one as the touchpad stopped working. 

[Smurf]

7 minutes ago, Damse1994 said:

I really don’t disagree with you on this one, it’s a personal preference. I don’t think I ever had a windows computer I was as happy for as my MBP.

I was very happy with the laptop my workplace provided for me, but it is strictly for work and after a year I had to have a new one as the touchpad stopped working. 

Fair enough. I struggle to justify buying a Mac. Although I do need it to work it hurts everytime. 

I much prefer PC - not only the price - but I hate folder navigation on the Mac. It's cumbersome and a I have a lot of filing I need to do.

I posted a pretty lengthy post in another thread about the pricing - and my new Mac when I do get one will be about €4,500!!! 
I put another computer together with the exact same specs and it was €2000

But I do need the Mac for work as some fonts won't work on the PC. 

[Damse1994]

17 minutes ago, Smurf said:

Fair enough. I struggle to justify buying a Mac. Although I do need it to work it hurts everytime. 

I much prefer PC - not only the price - but I hate folder navigation on the Mac. It's cumbersome and a I have a lot of filing I need to do.

I posted a pretty lengthy post in another thread about the pricing - and my new Mac when I do get one will be about €4,500!!! 
I put another computer together with the exact same specs and it was €2000

But I do need the Mac for work as some fonts won't work on the PC. 

Yeah I saw your configuration of the iMac in the other thread. I’ve never thought of that, but the Finder is bad. 
 

I’m glad my workplace provides the laptops. As I actually think it is quite a lot more expensive than the Mac. 

[Smurf]

2 minutes ago, Damse1994 said:

Yeah I saw your configuration of the iMac in the other thread. I’ve never thought of that, but the Finder is bad. 
 

I’m glad my workplace provides the laptops. As I actually think it is quite a lot more expensive than the Mac. 

Of course - if you have the money and want a Mac - then go and buy one. There's nothing wrong with them. They're good computers.

[nkunku]

Type: Laptop

Model: HP Pavilion 15

CPU Model: AMD Ryzen 5 3500U

CPU Base Frequency: 2,1GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 3,7GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 2.400MT/s

GPU: Radeon RX Vega 8

Graphics Level in 3D: ?

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A: 05 min 32 Sec

Benchmark B: 24 min 50 Sec

Benchmark C: xx min xx Sec

Benchmark D: Computer says No!

 

With this results, is somebody willing to please go on vacation with the game i attached to 1July 2025 and 1July 2032?

It would thake days and days for me to do that..

I would be very very thankfull!

 https://www.mediafire.com/file/l8z7mgx86kjs8vq/start.fm/file

[Captain Krakatoa]

a bit noob question here.

let's say after seeing the benchmark spreadsheet, i have the data.

then, what does it mean exactly for me to how should i setup the save?

[Jervaj]

Question. How important are you feeling that SSD storage is for performance outside of saving/loading games? And if there is notable differences, what part do you need to have stored in the SSD for this to show?

 

Im wondering because I have both SSD and HDD in my laptop, and given space restrictions I could afford to move the main game to the steam directory in the SSD, but the SI folder in documents alone its around half my SSD space, so that would be not possible without major tinkering from my side, so not worth it if changes arent noticeable.

[Brother Ben]

39 minutes ago, Captain Krakatoa said:

a bit noob question here.

let's say after seeing the benchmark spreadsheet, i have the data.

then, what does it mean exactly for me to how should i setup the save?

It doesn't really do that.  Nobody can really tell you how to set up your database because slow for you could be fast for me and visa versa

What it can do is tell you what processor is fastest for Football Manager if you are looking to make a purchase

 

[Brother Ben]

9 minutes ago, Jervaj said:

Question. How important are you feeling that SSD storage is for performance outside of saving/loading games? And if there is notable differences, what part do you need to have stored in the SSD for this to show?

 

Im wondering because I have both SSD and HDD in my laptop, and given space restrictions I could afford to move the main game to the steam directory in the SSD, but the SI folder in documents alone its around half my SSD space, so that would be not possible without major tinkering from my side, so not worth it if changes arent noticeable.

No difference outside saving and loading.

That said even though I know this I still have mine on my SSD.  FM even has its own SSD on my Desktop PC  

there is even an argument that HDD could be better in some circumstances like if you have say 500,000+ small images as some SSD's do not handle huge volumes of small files well.  I haven't tested this though to be fair

Edit - removed the above as probably untrue on modern hardware

Edited December 14, 2020 by Brother Ben

[kevhamster]

19 hours ago, nkunku said:

Type: Laptop

Model: HP Pavilion 15

CPU Model: AMD Ryzen 5 3500U

CPU Base Frequency: 2,1GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 3,7GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 2.400MT/s

GPU: Radeon RX Vega 8

Graphics Level in 3D: ?

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A: 05 min 32 Sec

Benchmark B: 24 min 50 Sec

Benchmark C: xx min xx Sec

Benchmark D: Computer says No!

 

With this results, is somebody willing to please go on vacation with the game i attached to 1July 2025 and 1July 2032?

It would thake days and days for me to do that..

I would be very very thankfull!

 https://www.mediafire.com/file/l8z7mgx86kjs8vq/start.fm/file

Interesting..... 

My Ryzen 5 2500U was around 30 seconds quicker for benchmark A and only 9 seconds slower for benchmark B.  I'd have expected an uplift in performance compared to the previous gen version of the chip, but this suggests otherwise.

[yezzko]

On 14/12/2020 at 17:50, kevhamster said:

Interesting..... 

My Ryzen 5 2500U was around 30 seconds quicker for benchmark A and only 9 seconds slower for benchmark B.  I'd have expected an uplift in performance compared to the previous gen version of the chip, but this suggests otherwise.

In laptops performance depends heavily on cooling a this ones have configurable TDP 12-25 W so comparison is not so straightforward as in desktops.

[jonpt]

On 10/12/2020 at 15:24, maaartio said:

@jonpt
Hello, sorry, but I don't speak English. I test the RAM all the time and it's not the optimal setting yet. Waiting for the new UEFI AGESA for my gigaybet x570. At the moment my record in D is: 13 minutes 25 seconds (3600 14-14-14-14-28). See screen. I do not remember the previous timings of 3200 and 13 min. 34 sec

Thank you for sharing your RAM timings. I have tried them on my system and WOW what a difference they make. 

I really appreciate your help!

 

[jonpt]

On 10/12/2020 at 14:36, jonpt said:

Type: Desktop

Model: Custom made - Crosshair 8 Impact. Custom Loop

CPU Model: Ryzen 9 5950x

CPU Base Frequency: 3.6 GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.9 GHz (With PBO 5.1ghz)

RAM: 32GB

RAM Clockspeed: 3600Mhz CL16

GPU: Watercooled Strix 2080s

Storage Type: NVME 1tb

 

Benchmark A: 1 min 22 sec

Benchmark B: 6m 0 sec

Benchmark C: 7 min 05 sec

Benchmark D: 13 min 07 sec

 

 

OK So I did a bit of playing around in the BIOS and switched my memory from another system. So I am now running 3733mhz Cl 13 2x8gb (My FCLK will not hit 1900 on this BIOS)

I used Maaartio's memory timings as a reference point. and turned all the voltage settings on my motherboard up to 11. The CPU was at times pulling 240W where before it was maxing at 145W. Some small improvements up until benchmark D!

 

Benchmark A: 1 min 22 sec (Unchanged)

Benchmark B: 5m 52 sec

Benchmark C: 6 min 51 sec

Benchmark D: 12 min 03 sec

[stevenvdijk]

 

Type: Laptop

Model: MacBook Air 13" M1

CPU Model: Apple M1 (8-core)

CPU Base Frequency: 3.2GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: N/A

RAM: 8GB

RAM Clockspeed: -

GPU: Apple GPU

Graphics Level in 3D: Medium

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A: 01 min 58 Sec

Benchmark B: 9 min 18 Sec

Benchmark C: 12 min 59 Sec