Welcome, Guest.
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade!

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 7 months ago #1

  • Quentin-Tarantino
  • Quentin-Tarantino's Avatar
  • Offline
  • If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
  • Posts: 351
  • Thank you received: 218
GTA V SFX 2.0 + Framework Pack, only using the SFX 2.0 config = 42 fps and GTA V without 57fps

GTA V SFX 2.0 + Reshade Pack, only using the SFX 2.0 config = 65 fps and GTA V without 75fps

I am using the exact same values and have tested over and over and same Results!
plus with the same values tweaked. The SFX 2.0 visuals look better in the SFX 2.0 + Framework Pack.

It's like the McFX_settings + GemFX_settings are loading even though they are disabled

Any Ideas to why this is happen?
Last Edit: 1 year 7 months ago by Quentin-Tarantino.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Ganossa

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 7 months ago #2

  • Ganossa
  • Ganossa's Avatar
  • Offline
  • 최정장군
  • Posts: 790
  • Thank you received: 838
Can you post your related setting files?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 7 months ago #3

  • Quentin-Tarantino
  • Quentin-Tarantino's Avatar
  • Offline
  • If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
  • Posts: 351
  • Thank you received: 218
LuciferHawk wrote:
Can you post your related setting files?

This is the SFX 2.0 settings in the Framework pack
www.mediafire.com/download/6hl5nrpus51zfa1/Settings_.rar

But when i use those same exact SFX settings in Reshade + SFX 2.0 pack they look different and with better fps
Last Edit: 1 year 7 months ago by Quentin-Tarantino.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 7 months ago #4

  • Ganossa
  • Ganossa's Avatar
  • Offline
  • 최정장군
  • Posts: 790
  • Thank you received: 838
Thank you.
I checked and 50% of the additional impact comes from the depth buffer being calculated in the framework though not needed in your case. I will add a setting in the Common_settings.cfg file to allow forcing it off in the next release for ppl that play games without depth buffer access or that simply do not use depth dependent shader.

The remaining 50% are due to differences in SweetFX shader. I will have to take a closer look to find out which and how shader differ.

EDIT: Okay, it seems to be related how the piggy bag is currently implemented in the framework. If you deactivate FXAA, Bloom and LumaSharpen the framework is actually much faster than stand alone SFX (considering I fixed the issue on top, so maybe not for you yet). I will see what I can do about the piggy bag solution.

EDIT#2: I found the reason, the piggy bag calculation seems to be broken and therefore executes the shader twice. If I fix this and compare SFX directly with the framework there is only a slight difference in fps (in our TestingSoftware: SFX with 2880fps, FM with 2920fps). However, I disabled the additional frame storage in the FM for the direct comparison. It is needed in most other (than SFX) shader, so in the release FM would have 2600fps due to the framework storing each frame at the beginning so that any shader can base its effects on the original image later on.

EDIT#3:P So I decided to actually give you the option to also turn the initial storage off. :silly: For ppl that really need the last bit of fps!
Last Edit: 1 year 7 months ago by Ganossa.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Quentin-Tarantino

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 7 months ago #5

  • Ganossa
  • Ganossa's Avatar
  • Offline
  • 최정장군
  • Posts: 790
  • Thank you received: 838
Okay, I fixed the issue. It was due to some renaming we have done in the SweetFX_settings.cfg. Anyway, the results with your settings using our performance app are now the following::

Tested applying the two new values RFX_InitialStorage (to turn on/off initial storage of the frame) and RFX_DepthBufferCalc (to turn on/off depth calculation)

SFX - 1475 fps in stand-alone SweetFX

FW - 550 fps // Before the fix

FW - 1485 fps // RFX_InitialStorage set to 0 and RFX_DepthBufferCalc set to 0 => config for when you only use SFX in the Framework
FW - 1395 fps // RFX_InitialStorage set to 1 and RFX_DepthBufferCalc set to 0 => config for when you use no depth dependent shader
FW - 1205 fps // RFX_InitialStorage set to 0 and RFX_DepthBufferCalc set to 1 => all effects will be dependent on the previous effects
FW - 1172 fps // RFX_InitialStorage set to 1 and RFX_DepthBufferCalc set to 1 => default config if you want to use any mix of shader as intended
Last Edit: 1 year 6 months ago by Ganossa.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: crosire, Wicked Sick

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 7 months ago #6

  • Ioxa
  • Ioxa's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 267
  • Thank you received: 245
It would probably be tedious to code if this is possible, but is it possible to have the shaders themselves turn these options on and off based on usage? For example, if a selected shader uses the initial storage or the depth buffer it would turn those options on, otherwise they would just be off by default.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 7 months ago #7

  • Ganossa
  • Ganossa's Avatar
  • Offline
  • 최정장군
  • Posts: 790
  • Thank you received: 838
Ioxa wrote:
It would probably be tedious to code if this is possible, but is it possible to have the shaders themselves turn these options on and off based on usage? For example, if a selected shader uses the initial storage or the depth buffer it would turn those options on, otherwise they would just be off by default.

It is possible but the shader developers have to be aware of it. You can then initially define in your shader whether that shader uses either of those options. I would still like to add the overwrite in the Common_settings.cfg so the user can be the last instance deciding to turn it on or off.
Last Edit: 1 year 7 months ago by Ganossa.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 7 months ago #8

  • Wicked Sick
  • Wicked Sick's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Die young or suffer (Forgive my poor English)
  • Posts: 360
  • Thank you received: 105
"EDIT#3:P So I decided to actually give you the option to also turn the initial storage off. :silly: For ppl that really need the last bit of fps!"

Is it the 0.18.1, Lucifer? The #define RFX_LogDepth? Sorry, I am a bit sleepy...

Also, which testing software do you use?
Finding relief somewhere between a tree's branch and its shade.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 7 months ago #9

  • Ganossa
  • Ganossa's Avatar
  • Offline
  • 최정장군
  • Posts: 790
  • Thank you received: 838
Wicked Sick wrote:
"EDIT#3:P So I decided to actually give you the option to also turn the initial storage off. :silly: For ppl that really need the last bit of fps!"

Is it the 0.18.1, Lucifer? The #define RFX_LogDepth? Sorry, I am a bit sleepy...

Also, which testing software do you use?

No, it will be in the upcoming release. Quentin just found out about the issue when comparing FM to SFX stand-alone.

CJ provided us with the HighQualityTC, which is basically a simple d3d9 renderer that draws a 2d picture in a 3d space.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Quentin-Tarantino

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 7 months ago #10

  • Wicked Sick
  • Wicked Sick's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Die young or suffer (Forgive my poor English)
  • Posts: 360
  • Thank you received: 105
Do you think you would make a video of it someday? And thank you o//
Finding relief somewhere between a tree's branch and its shade.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 7 months ago #11

So, this will really enhance the framerate even with depth buffer and initial storage on? GTAV give me really low framerates right now when using reshade. I get at least 50fps with it off but go down to 25-30fps with it on. I am not using DoF or AO. The only feature using depth buffer is heat waves. I hope these improvements help a good bit.


Witanlore: Dreamtime
The administrator has disabled public write access.

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 7 months ago #12

  • Ganossa
  • Ganossa's Avatar
  • Offline
  • 최정장군
  • Posts: 790
  • Thank you received: 838
vfxninjaeditor wrote:
So, this will really enhance the framerate even with depth buffer and initial storage on? GTAV give me really low framerates right now when using reshade. I get at least 50fps with it off but go down to 25-30fps with it on. I am not using DoF or AO. The only feature using depth buffer is heat waves. I hope these improvements help a good bit.

It will at least enhance (half impact) the frame rate for the SFX suite. If you do not use DoF, AO or another shader that is depth dependent, it will increase fps even further.

Ioxa wrote:
It would probably be tedious to code if this is possible, but is it possible to have the shaders themselves turn these options on and off based on usage? For example, if a selected shader uses the initial storage or the depth buffer it would turn those options on, otherwise they would just be off by default.

I included another value for automation now :side:
These will be the 3 new values in the Common_settings.cfg
// -- Performance --
#define RFX_SmartPerfCheck	1 //[0 or 1] If set to 1, checks your settings to set the following two values automatically
#define RFX_InitialStorage	1 //[0 or 1] Set this to 0 if you !only! use the SweetFX suite and want some additional fps (overwrites RFX_SmartPerfCheck if set to 0)
#define RFX_DepthBufferCalc	1 //[0 or 1] Set this to 0 if run an application that does not allow depth buffer access or you use no depth dependent effects and want some additional fps (overwrites RFX_SmartPerfCheck if set to 0)
The administrator has disabled public write access.

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 7 months ago #13

  • Martigen
  • Martigen's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 147
  • Thank you received: 35
LuciferHawk wrote:
I included another value for automation now :side:
These will be the 3 new values in the Common_settings.cfg
Awesome. Just so I understand the wording, even if RFX_SmartPerfCheck is 1, setting either of the other two to 0 will override Smartcheck in that particular respect?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 7 months ago #14

  • Ganossa
  • Ganossa's Avatar
  • Offline
  • 최정장군
  • Posts: 790
  • Thank you received: 838
Martigen wrote:
LuciferHawk wrote:
I included another value for automation now :side:
These will be the 3 new values in the Common_settings.cfg

Awesome. Just so I understand the wording, even if RFX_SmartPerfCheck is 1, setting either of the other two to 0 will override Smartcheck in that particular respect?

Correct, it basically allows to only smart check one of those two options.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 6 months ago #15

  • MonarchX
  • MonarchX's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 210
  • Thank you received: 15
SO does that mean that Framework version can be made to run faster than the non-Framework version?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

SFX 2.0 Fps in Framework is worse than in Reshade! 1 year 6 months ago #16

  • Ganossa
  • Ganossa's Avatar
  • Offline
  • 최정장군
  • Posts: 790
  • Thank you received: 838
MonarchX wrote:
SO does that mean that Framework version can be made to run faster than the non-Framework version?

Yes, it will automatically do that depending on which shader/effects you select.
The administrator has disabled public write access.