From my own results on multiple screens I think resolution has a lot to do with the numbers we are seeing. Enough that perhaps screen pixels should be a listed parameter. My same laptop gets 21 FPS full screen on the retina display and 39 FPS on an external monitor. Pretty big spread. Could much of the variance we are seeing could be the uncontrolled for difference in peoples monitors?
2 Likes
Could well be I think. I’ll go back to my earlier post and add details of my monitor there. FWIW, it’s an iMac 27" 5K Retina screen.
All of my tests, as well as those of my alter ego @sjdorst-doppleganger, were done on a 1920 x 1080 display with SketchUp maximized and no display scaling.
Both computers, home (me) and work(@sjdorst-doppleganger) have a 2nd display. All tests done with nothing displaying on the 2nd display.
On this random PC I get 31 frames per second.
(2.080 / 0.0285)
SU Pro 2019 and Windows 10 home.
CPU: i7 4790k
GPU: 'Nvidia GTX970, 6gb
How scientific is this test?
It’s great to see people engaging with the testing process and posting some interesting results.
But I’m not quite sure what’s being tested; Im looking at my performance monitor but neither the Intel i7 or nivida GPU are being stretched. RAM isnt near full.
Maybe a longer test (more reliable) or two tests to focus on CPU and GPU performance would be very useful?
Or add a million or two Susans to the model? 
I actually like the idea of testing an increasingly larger/more complex model until the FPS gets down to a particular number. That shows us how much “complexity” a PC can handle and tests its limits.
Is there an easy way to display FPS for a scene that we create ourselves?
On a scale from one to ten, none 
To test scientific, you would need the same everything conditions but one, eg. Same installation of software, extensions, OS, clean install, same connexion, same screen setup, same monitor, same cable etc etc. And then replace one item (eg. Video card) to see what the effect is.
I believe no system is identical, they are all ‘unique’
The test is merely to look for ‘common ground’ factors ( this processor with that videocard give on an average this and that framerate.
You can also use this test:
Draw a line
Divide by 10000000
See how long it takes
The model is not ‘complex’ , but I bet it will bog the i4790 down for a while.
Complexity has different faces.
1 Like
Benchmark results before/after upgrade:
Windows 10, SU 2019 Pro , 4k 60hz display, add default settings.
CPU 4790k
RAM 32GB DDR3
GPU GTX970 6gb
Frames per second: 30
CPU 4790k
RAM 32GB DDR3
GPU RTX2080 Super 8gb
Frames per second: 32
1 Like
Just a stab in the dark: In another thread, someone with a similar setup got much better results by going to the Nvidia control panel 3D settings and turning off “Threaded optimization” for SketchUp if it is turned on. I get better results from my 2070 card, and for me that has been turned off by default.
1 Like
I checked three of mine, and all of them have Threaded Optimization set to ‘Auto’
In twelve years of using both Quadro and GeForce graphics, I’ve never touched the default settings.
There’s not much difference in single thread performance between your i7-4790K and my i7-6700K
I’d be interested to learn what happens if you reduce screen resolution.
Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz vs Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4.00GHz
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-i7-4790K/2565vs2275
Interesting feedback - thanks guys. I will post a few further test results.
I’m currently using a laptop with i8750h, 32gb DDR4 and 1070max-q
Monitors are either 1080p 144hz and 1440p 75hz
1080p I get 32 frames/second.
1440p I get 30 frames/second.
Turning threaded optimisation OFF (for Sketchup only)
1080p I get 35 frames/second.
1440p I get 32 frames/second.
So yes there is a noticeable improvement in the benchmark with the Threaded optimisation OFF.
I did have a weird set of results the other day when I plugged this laptop into the 4k 60hz monitor, I was getting consistent 52 frames/second. I’ll try to recreate those conditions. I wonder if windows desktop scaling may have something to do with it.
sidenote:| anyone noticed how Profile Edges OFF = 100% speed increase? Also, Depth Cue edges are 25% faster than Profiles.
On this 4790k and 2080 Super setup, I am not seeing any difference tweaking the Threaded Optimisation setting… nor any other settings for that matter. I tried resolution, vsync, windows scaling, and various gpu quality adjustments (and the most recent driver) and found no discernable difference.
Only global FSAA gave a -2 frame/second penalty when turned on.
During these tests the GPU is hardly working. To make it work harder I copied the scene 15 times and made the faces 50% transparent. This managed to get the GPU to work a little bit (up to 35% utilsation and at 15frames/second).
I’ll overclock the CPU next and see what that does.
I’m able to reliably recreate the 51-53 frames/second scores on my laptop:
i8750H with the 1070maxq, running at 4k 60hz (while also showing Windows 10 desktop on a second 1080p display)
Not sure why this laptop is scoring so well…any ideas?
All graphics settings are default except I did change the Threaded Optimisation = Off
So wierdly my big PC Workstation with the 64gb RAM and RTX2080 Super is a LOT slower than my 15" laptop. Yes the CPU generation is newer, but the performance should be similarish.
I have a feeling that there’s something fishy going on with differnent monitors/scaling/hertz/window modes/etc…but I dont know too much about that stuff.
it may be set to overclock when cold and throttle back when hot…
john
My 2010 computer
EVGA SR-2 Dual Xeon 5650x 48gb ram 1333, Nvidia GTX580
72 frames displayed in 3.7537 sec
average frame = 0.0514
19.4474 frames/second
upgrading to Ryzen 9 soon!
with my AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16-Core Processor and Nvidia GTX 1060. I got 31,3754 frames/second. It happens that I work on very heavy projects with over 400MB with HD textures. can I get great benefits by acuistating an RTX 4000? or do I spend money on no benefit?.
Thank you.
Mr Marco.
It is just my opinion but I think that a graphics card change in your case wouldn’t bring tangible benefits. Trying to optimize your models would help more.
thank you for your opinion. I keep the models optimized. I cancel the unsup used components, cancel the unlaced materials and clean up the imported models. But with Vray I create very complex images and Sketchup creates heavy files to manage. Creo Render for décor clothing stores and clothes, shoes, bags, fabrics, are very very heavy every single component. the CPU is really powerful, I think Sketchup in OpenGL can be fine with a Cuadro P4000, but I’m not sure. What do you think?
RTX does seem to be better than GTX in general, but as an example of where something in the model can make a huge difference, try the FPS test again after unchecking Edge Style/Profiles. You will be shocked.
Hello.
Of course, if we eliminate the edge and shadows, the test can give better results. however, the test should be done with the parameters set by Default otherwise it is not the same with the other users.
I try to understand if in Sketchup the RTX or Quadro graphics card can make so much or little difference compared to my GTX 1060 … I render and the files I create are really heavy. I’m going to give you an example of components. only this file is : 60MB. think about creating a whole store … that’s a lot of MB.
I am trying to convince people that having Profiles on as default is a bad thing! I didn’t need to turn off shadows to make that test jump from 30 fps to 60 fps, just turning off Profiles was enough.
The spreadsheet that shows the results isn’t too useful, the FPS column is filled with numbers in the 200-400 range, and I’m not sure where that number comes from. Of the few that do show an FPS number, RTX numbers look good.