I tested the Hillside Sample and some othe lighter projects in Editor and as a packaged build. used a performace profiling blueprint to test the exact same scaneario. 5.4 performed 5% worse. This was in the preview phase. but i was more than dissapointed.
That's roughly the same what I got from the benchmarks. But I noticed a big performance boost in loading times. I'm working on a video in which I go into more detail about the performance and explain a few things.
Why should I have to cough up a couple of grand, just to code a video game. ARE you game developing for a studio, or just showing off features? I personally will not waste my time, with any iteration of UNREAL 5. Not until the bugs are worked out, and the engine is more stable. I am still getting over 100 FPS, on High to Epic settings, on a 12th. GEN I.7 , with 32 GEGS, and a 3060 Ti (8Gegs) . That's running in 4.27.2 . In the same project, in 5.3. , I get blurry textures, stuttering, and a frame rate between 10-20 FPS. WHY? , should I be using this version, when the performance is garbage? Lumen, Nanite, and Global illumination , sound great . But, what good are these features, if they choke out the engine? Most people can't afford a 4060-4090 card. We need to have an honest discussion. I want to see "Ultra Dynamic Sky, and Fluid Flux, " running on 5.4 , on A 128 meter game grid, with procedural foliage in use. RAW performance? How about practical, and realistic?
Bro I have 2 question. My PC specs: Processor: Ryzen 5 5600G Ram: 16GB (2x8GB) 3600mhz DDR4 Gpu: RTX 4060 Ti 8GB Boot drive: Transcend 230s 1TB sata ssd Monitor: Dell E2016HV 1600x900 Question 1: If I want to upgrade my monitor should I get 1080p or 2k? Is 2k monitor for game development with unreal engine gives less performance as the pixel count is much higher than 1080p? Question 2: If I want to upgrade my storage should I get 2TB sata ssd or 6TB WD Red HDD? 2TB decent sata ssd with dram cache is more pricier (like 30$ more) than that hard drive as worldwide NAND chip price become higher. Or should I get cheaper dramless lexar ns100 2TB ssd which will cost 50$ less than WD hdd? And how much ssd vs hdd affect performance? Is it noticeable? (My motherboard does not have any nvme slot or blank pcie slot. So, sata is the only option) Thank you for giving your time to read my comment.
1. My benchmarks were all done on a 4k monitor with a 1920x1080p viewport. This means that you would get the same fps values on a full HD monitor if you work in full screen mode. I would advise you to get a 2k monitor because you can then adjust the viewport because (I) would never work in full screen mode. 2. That depends on how many projects you want to save over what period of time. With the SSD you are on the safe side! No matter which of the two I would take the one without a dram cache if you can save money there. If you only want to get the new hard drive for the unreal projects then I would recommend the HDD. If this is going to be your new system disk then definitely an SSD. You absolutely have to install the engine on the fastest disk, only with the projects it doesn't matter what they are loaded from, that's how it was in the 5.3 version. Since the loading times of projects have become extremely faster in the 5.4 version, I can't yet tell you exactly whether the HDD is slower with the new version.
@@UnrealBench @UnrealBench Question 1: Cleared. Question 2: That means if I install unreal engine on ssd and create project on hdd that's will make no difference from creating the project in ssd? I already have 1 tb boot drive/system drive. I can install unreal engine on this drive.
Yes watch this th-cam.com/video/7lQIc0ifb-4/w-d-xo.html It was tested on the 5.3 version. Can't say anything about the new 5.4 version. If you're not sure, take the ssd with it, you're safe. If you need a lot of GB of storage and loading times are not quite as important to you as the newer engine versions, go for the hdd.
@@UnrealBench I watched it. Project opening time is almost identical. But in the last few second you mentioned that storage games load time on HDD is 5.65 second and 2 ssds are nearly 3 second. Is this games mean general games like call of duty, gta or unreal engine project based games?
Yes, exactly. The loading times are almost the same when you load an unreal engine project. But when it comes to the finished game you've made (or other games in general, as you've written), nvmes and ssd are twice as fast at loading.
Hey bro, I have overclocked my rtx 4060 ti by +225mhz on core and +1850mhz on memory. The voltage is on default voltage. After OC the core clock became 3015mhz and memory clock became 10850mhz. Previously, at stock settings core clock was 2790mhz and memory clock was 9000mhz. I tested almost everything for stablity and found out that it is stable. My timesky score boosted from 13,305 (stock) to 14,444 (oc) (i) Can I keep oc for 24 hours and 7 days? (ii) Will it reduce gpu lifespan?
hey man i had a quick question if you had to advise between 4060ti 16 gb vs 4070 12 gb which should i go for i have heard many people talk about how unreal engine needs alot of vram ? is that true 2. between a i7 14700k and a Ryzen 9 7900X which might be better
Yes the old 5.3 is around 3-4 percent fast in packed projects. I'm working on a video in which I compare more performance differences. E.g. Packed Projects and loading times. The loading times have improved a lot in 5.4, I can already say that.
FG is a BS. As for upscaling quality - you showed very static scenes with no movement and slowly planning camera angles, but if you actually add dynamically moving objects and characters you will see inferiority of FSR when comapred to any other solution. FSR is plagued with artifacts and ghosting etc. Image quality is very poor.
Funny thing. Even chatGPT suggested I stick with 5.3 specifically for performance reasons.
Your content quality is awesome, you deserve more support / subscribe
Thank you mate I appreciate it 🙏
Hey!
I remember that you promised to make an updated video about FSR3. FSR3.1 was recently released.
Are there any plans for an updated menu video?
Yes, I will definitely make a video about it. I've been sick for the last few weeks, so there haven't been any updates for a long time.
CPU performance also seems to be lower in 5.4, tested with ragdolls dropping from sky
Okay good to know 👍🏻 I haven't done any CPU tests myself so far, only the gpu performance
I tested the Hillside Sample and some othe lighter projects in Editor and as a packaged build. used a performace profiling blueprint to test the exact same scaneario. 5.4 performed 5% worse. This was in the preview phase. but i was more than dissapointed.
That's roughly the same what I got from the benchmarks. But I noticed a big performance boost in loading times. I'm working on a video in which I go into more detail about the performance and explain a few things.
I‘m really curious to see, where this 2x Claim comes from. Maybe this is only the case for RDNA 2, as this would make sense for 60fps on consoles.
Why should I have to cough up a couple of grand, just to code a video game. ARE you game developing for a studio, or just showing off features? I personally will not waste my time, with any iteration of UNREAL 5. Not until the bugs are worked out, and the engine is more stable. I am still getting over 100 FPS, on High to Epic settings, on a 12th. GEN I.7 , with 32 GEGS, and a 3060 Ti (8Gegs) . That's running in 4.27.2 . In the same project, in 5.3. , I get blurry textures, stuttering, and a frame rate between 10-20 FPS. WHY? , should I be using this version, when the performance is garbage?
Lumen, Nanite, and Global illumination , sound great . But, what good are these features, if they choke out the engine? Most people can't afford a 4060-4090 card. We need to have an honest discussion.
I want to see "Ultra Dynamic Sky, and Fluid Flux, " running on 5.4 , on A 128 meter game grid, with procedural foliage in use. RAW performance? How about practical, and realistic?
hey man what are your thoughts on 4070 ti super 16gb vs 4080 super 16gb vs amd RX 7900xtx 24gb
Rx 7900 xtx is way better go for it
Bro I have 2 question.
My PC specs:
Processor: Ryzen 5 5600G
Ram: 16GB (2x8GB) 3600mhz DDR4
Gpu: RTX 4060 Ti 8GB
Boot drive: Transcend 230s 1TB sata ssd
Monitor: Dell E2016HV 1600x900
Question 1:
If I want to upgrade my monitor should I get 1080p or 2k? Is 2k monitor for game development with unreal engine gives less performance as the pixel count is much higher than 1080p?
Question 2:
If I want to upgrade my storage should I get 2TB sata ssd or 6TB WD Red HDD? 2TB decent sata ssd with dram cache is more pricier (like 30$ more) than that hard drive as worldwide NAND chip price become higher. Or should I get cheaper dramless lexar ns100 2TB ssd which will cost 50$ less than WD hdd? And how much ssd vs hdd affect performance? Is it noticeable? (My motherboard does not have any nvme slot or blank pcie slot. So, sata is the only option)
Thank you for giving your time to read my comment.
1. My benchmarks were all done on a 4k monitor with a 1920x1080p viewport. This means that you would get the same fps values on a full HD monitor if you work in full screen mode. I would advise you to get a 2k monitor because you can then adjust the viewport because (I) would never work in full screen mode.
2. That depends on how many projects you want to save over what period of time. With the SSD you are on the safe side! No matter which of the two I would take the one without a dram cache if you can save money there. If you only want to get the new hard drive for the unreal projects then I would recommend the HDD. If this is going to be your new system disk then definitely an SSD. You absolutely have to install the engine on the fastest disk, only with the projects it doesn't matter what they are loaded from, that's how it was in the 5.3 version. Since the loading times of projects have become extremely faster in the 5.4 version, I can't yet tell you exactly whether the HDD is slower with the new version.
@@UnrealBench
@UnrealBench
Question 1:
Cleared.
Question 2:
That means if I install unreal engine on ssd and create project on hdd that's will make no difference from creating the project in ssd?
I already have 1 tb boot drive/system drive. I can install unreal engine on this drive.
Yes watch this th-cam.com/video/7lQIc0ifb-4/w-d-xo.html
It was tested on the 5.3 version. Can't say anything about the new 5.4 version. If you're not sure, take the ssd with it, you're safe. If you need a lot of GB of storage and loading times are not quite as important to you as the newer engine versions, go for the hdd.
@@UnrealBench
I watched it. Project opening time is almost identical. But in the last few second you mentioned that storage games load time on HDD is 5.65 second and 2 ssds are nearly 3 second. Is this games mean general games like call of duty, gta or unreal engine project based games?
Yes, exactly. The loading times are almost the same when you load an unreal engine project. But when it comes to the finished game you've made (or other games in general, as you've written), nvmes and ssd are twice as fast at loading.
Hey bro,
I have overclocked my rtx 4060 ti by +225mhz on core and +1850mhz on memory. The voltage is on default voltage. After OC the core clock became 3015mhz and memory clock became 10850mhz. Previously, at stock settings core clock was 2790mhz and memory clock was 9000mhz. I tested almost everything for stablity and found out that it is stable. My timesky score boosted from 13,305 (stock) to 14,444 (oc)
(i) Can I keep oc for 24 hours and 7 days?
(ii) Will it reduce gpu lifespan?
hey man i had a quick question if you had to advise between 4060ti 16 gb vs 4070 12 gb which should i go for i have heard many people talk about how unreal engine needs alot of vram ? is that true
2. between a i7 14700k and a Ryzen 9 7900X which might be better
That's true. But the 4070 us the better choice because it has way more power. Look at my benchmarks.
I only tested one Intel processor.
Take a look at pugetbench, I think they tested the processor.
@@UnrealBench oh i see thanks
What about the performance in packged build, do you notice any difference?
Yes the old 5.3 is around 3-4 percent fast in packed projects. I'm working on a video in which I compare more performance differences. E.g. Packed Projects and loading times. The loading times have improved a lot in 5.4, I can already say that.
FG is a BS.
As for upscaling quality - you showed very static scenes with no movement and slowly planning camera angles, but if you actually add dynamically moving objects and characters you will see inferiority of FSR when comapred to any other solution. FSR is plagued with artifacts and ghosting etc. Image quality is very poor.
Hey
Is rx7900 gre good for unreal engine 5 or higher version?
yes, perfect