News Project CARS 3 PC Benchmarks and Performance: Keep Your Eyes on the Bottleneck Road

[Admin]

We tested Project CARS 3 on a collection of graphics cards and CPUs to see how it runs, and also investigated the various settings. This sJpSjTU3eVqe6wVunQ6une will help you tune the game to run well on your PC's hardware.

Project CARS 3 PC Benchmarks and Performance: Keep Your Eyes on the Bottleneck Road : Read more

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

If you'd like any specific configurations tested, leave a comment telling me what to test.

I have pretty much all 900-series and later Nvidia cards, plus a 780. I have R9 390, Fury X, and all RX 500 and newer AMD GPUs. I'm planning on adding at least 780/980/1080/2080 for generational architecture comparisons, and 1080 Ti because it was the fastest Pascal card. I'm also planning to do Vega 64, RX 590, RX 570 4GB, and R9 390. That will happen on Monday most likely.

For CPUs, I don't have quite the range of hardware for testing, mostly just 9th Gen Intel and Ryzen parts. I do have one i7-4770K PC I could try to pull out, but previous tests have showed it's typically just slightly slower than the i3-9100 (worse with games that require more memory bandwidth).


-----------
Addendum:

I also want to discuss the benchmark sequence in more detail. I tested the game using a replay, because it's repeatable and reliable. I also, as a test, recorded fps during an actual race, and then checked fps in the replay of that race. The replay performance was about 10% slower, for one specific GPU -- it probably has a range of 10-20%. This was using the chase cam view (camera 2) in both the race and the replay. I also did the default view during the replay (a shifting camera, #7), and performance was an additional 10% lower (than the chase cam). What about the cockpit view, for those what want a bit more of a realistic perspective during the race? Same replay, and performance was a few percent lower than the chase cam view.

To be clear: settings and resolution affect performance. Track selection and camera view affect performance. Live gameplay vs. replay affects performance. Weather and time of day affect performance. Online multiplayer vs. singleplayer effects performance. The number of vehicles visible on your screen effects performance. It's impossible (or at least wildly impractical) to try and test all of those different variables, so we end up with a single test sequence that acts as a baseline performance metric for a game.

If you want to compare your PC's performance to our results, do the first Monument Canyon River Run map (the 'preview' of the game before you get to career modes and live racing). I raced on beginner difficulty, and I managed to overtake all of the AI cars after about 40 seconds. If I map out fps over the course of the benchmark run, there's a ~10-15% jump in performance as I move into first place (because no other cars are visible). Or ask me for the benchmark file I guess -- I will probably make a new test if I ever add this game to our semi-permanent rotation of games used in GPU tests, but I can share what I'm currently using.

 

[barryv88]

Alot of people are still on quad cores (4c/4t or 4c/8t). If you can add any of those to your testing, that'll be much appreciated!

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Alot of people are still on quad cores (4c/4t or 4c/8t). If you can add any of those to your testing, that'll be much appreciated!

Core i3-9100 is 4-core/4-thread and was tested. Looks like the game scales more with clock speeds and architecture than core counts.

 

[micah.a.goldstein]

AMD+AMD and Intel+Nvidia only? Do people actually do this?

AMD+Nvidia is incredibly common (isn't it the most common after Intel+Nvidia?!), and I'm astounded that that configuration would be omitted!

 

[spongiemaster]

This isn't a good look for AMD.

The AMD CPU is bottlenecking the GPU so badly, that an i5 with a 5700XT (total cost under $600), is only 1% slower than a 3900X and 2080 Ti (~$1600). Splurge with a 9900K for your 5700XT and you'll still be paying less than half as much for slightly better performance.

 

[spongiemaster]

AMD+AMD and Intel+Nvidia only? Do people actually do this?

AMD+Nvidia is incredibly common (isn't it the most common after Intel+Nvidia?!), and I'm astounded that that configuration would be omitted!

Look at the CPU benchmarks. They show AMD + Nvidia. They don't look great for AMD.

 

[drivinfast247]

$1200 GPU, $500 CPU, $200 1080p monitor.

 

[spongiemaster]

$1200 GPU, $500 CPU, $200 1080p monitor.

If you're using a 144Hz 1080P monitor, only the Intel/2080ti combo is able to acheive a framerate in excess of that using high settings (nothing can do it at ultra settings). The best AMD can do, is fall 12% short of maxing your $200 monitor. At 4k, a Titan RTX can't crack 90fps. This game is reasonably demanding.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

$1200 GPU, $500 CPU, $200 1080p monitor.

Technically, I use a $600 4K G-Sync monitor for testing, but run it at lower resolutions to show scaling, in order to highlight the various potential bottlenecks. And to provide useful data for people that aren't running a 4K display at native resolution.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

FYI, I've just added about ten more GPUs to the benchmarks. Give or take.

 

[mac_angel]

If you'd like any specific configurations tested, leave a comment telling me what to test.

I have pretty much all 900-series and later Nvidia cards, plus a 780. I have R9 390, Fury X, and all RX 500 and newer AMD GPUs. I'm planning on adding at least 780/980/1080/2080 for generational architecture comparisons, and 1080 Ti because it was the fastest Pascal card. I'm also planning to do Vega 64, RX 590, RX 570 4GB, and R9 390. That will happen on Monday most likely.

For CPUs, I don't have quite the range of hardware for testing, mostly just 9th Gen Intel and Ryzen parts. I do have one i7-4770K PC I could try to pull out, but previous tests have showed it's typically just slightly slower than the i3-9100 (worse with games that require more memory bandwidth).


-----------
Addendum:

I also want to discuss the benchmark sequence in more detail. I tested the game using a replay, because it's repeatable and reliable. I also, as a test, recorded fps during an actual race, and then checked fps in the replay of that race. The replay performance was about 10% slower, for one specific GPU -- it probably has a range of 10-20%. This was using the chase cam view (camera 2) in both the race and the replay. I also did the default view during the replay (a shifting camera, #7), and performance was an additional 10% lower (than the chase cam). What about the cockpit view, for those what want a bit more of a realistic perspective during the race? Same replay, and performance was a few percent lower than the chase cam view.

To be clear: settings and resolution affect performance. Track selection and camera view affect performance. Live gameplay vs. replay affects performance. Weather and time of day affect performance. Online multiplayer vs. singleplayer effects performance. The number of vehicles visible on your screen effects performance. It's impossible (or at least wildly impractical) to try and test all of those different variables, so we end up with a single test sequence that acts as a baseline performance metric for a game.

If you want to compare your PC's performance to our results, do the first Monument Canyon River Run map (the 'preview' of the game before you get to career modes and live racing). I raced on beginner difficulty, and I managed to overtake all of the AI cars after about 40 seconds. If I map out fps over the course of the benchmark run, there's a ~10-15% jump in performance as I move into first place (because no other cars are visible). Or ask me for the benchmark file I guess -- I will probably make a new test if I ever add this game to our semi-permanent rotation of games used in GPU tests, but I can share what I'm currently using.

You take requests? Cool!!! How about my system then?
Core i9 10940-X @ 5.0GHz, 32GB DDR4 4366 C16, 1TB Adata SX8200 Pro, two GTX1080ti in SLI (can't wait for the 3080tis ), and three Samsung RU8000 4K TVs. I was able to get Project Cars 2 to run at 11,520x2160 with almost everything maxed (no AA, no blur, etc) and stay at 60fps sync.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

You take requests? Cool!!! How about my system then?
Core i9 10940-X @ 5.0GHz, 32GB DDR4 4366 C16, 1TB Adata SX8200 Pro, two GTX1080ti in SLI (can't wait for the 3080tis ), and three Samsung RU8000 4K TVs. I was able to get Project Cars 2 to run at 11,520x2160 with almost everything maxed (no AA, no blur, etc) and stay at 60fps sync.

I can take partial requests. I was a bit busy (REALLY busy!) with RTX 3090/3080/3070 today, but I'll give SLI 2080 Ti a shot maybe tomorrow. I'm betting it doesn't work (yet), but it might get fixed with a future patch. Also, I generally stick with common single monitor resolutions.

 

[mac_angel]

I can take partial requests. I was a bit busy (REALLY busy!) with RTX 3090/3080/3070 today, but I'll give SLI 2080 Ti a shot maybe tomorrow. I'm betting it doesn't work (yet), but it might get fixed with a future patch. Also, I generally stick with common single monitor resolutions.

yea, I know I have a very, very rare setup. NVidia has all but abandoned SLI and Surround mode. It's a pain in the ass to get both working. NVidia Inspector helps with SLI profiles. And while it may be a rare setup, three 55" 4K TVs, before the RTX 3090, SLI was pretty much needed. I still don't think I'll have the money to shell out for the 3090 - I'm going to wait a bit to see about a 3080 ti release. Buy one of those when they come available, and another for my bday next year.