Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
I/JG27_Nemesis

Upgrade from GTX 680 to GTX 980Ti - no performance gain

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

I've just upgraded from my three year old GTX 680 (which is still a powerfull PCB) to a brand new GTX 980Ti, second only to the Titan X.

The main reason why I upgraded my Graphics card is that I've seen low FPS in IL-2 BoS, sometimes going down to 32FPS and less, which is not that pleasant to fly any more (at least for me).

On the one hand, I thought performance Issues I had were Multiplayer related, with those 60+ Player Servers,

on the other hand, my CPU was never anywhere close to high load wenn I played IL-2 BoS, so this can't be the bottleneck of my system.

My assumption was, since the GPU is responsible for producing high frame rates, it would help to get a more powerful one.

The Pixel and Texel Fill rate and memory bandwidth of the GTX 980Ti are far superior to the GTX 680.

In simulations like iRacing & Co, as well as in 3DMarks, I see FPS gains in the range of more than 60%. (also the readout of my energy meter supported the evidence by significantly higher power demand from my power supply)

For example, the FPS in iRacing climbed from 230FPS to 350-400FPS.

3DMark scores in 3DMark 11 rose from 9278 to 16717.

However, I was shocked when I started IL-2 BoS, and FPS were just as low as with the GTX 680. GPU-z and CPU-Load showed numbers nowhere close to maximum load, sometimes not even 50%.

The test Scene is a QMB mission with 4x plus 4x friendly fighters and 4x plus 4x enemy fighters on the stalingrad map, and FPS dropped to numbers as low as 30FPS even with the new flagship GTX 980Ti.

That led me to the conclusion that there has to be an issue with the program code and / or nvidia driver optimization with IL-2 BoS.

It just can't be true that both benchmarks and other simulations see a 60-80% performance gain whereas IL-2 BoS sees almost nothing.

Thoughts?


My system configuration:

Core i7 3770
GeForce GTX 980Ti
8GB RAM
SSD 1 TB
Resolution 1920x1080
TrackIR 5 Pro
Sidewinder Force Feedback 2


tQTKut.png

R1eW6Y.png

Edited by I/JG27_Nemesis
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the game could pull 40% more frames out of your CPU, but something's stopping the game from doing it. Could it be vsync or the frame rate limiter? There are quite a few components involved there, between win10, NVidia Control Panel, the game settings and whether you are running in full screen or windowed mode. I've ordered the same GPU, waiting for it to arrive. I'll post the numbers I'll be getting.

Edited by coconut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In situations with many objects your fps will be limited by your CPU. I'm running 2x Titan X cards and in those situations like big dogfights they don't give me any boost.

I did run a 3770K at one time and when it was overclocked it gave very good performance with BoS. Have you tried overclocking your CPU?

I had mine clocked at 4.7GHz but unfortunately it became unstable and I had many game crashes. When I switched off the OC the crashes stopped but it's performance in BoS suffered. So perhaps find a stable speed you can get it to.

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clock speed seems to be the limiting factor in this case, your CPU should be running at 3.9Ghz in Intel turbo mode, but as said you will find benefits upping it beyond 4.0GHz.

 

Even so your performance does seem very low, are your CPU temps okay and the CPU is not being temp throttled?, even at +8% CPU load my CPU-Z shows clockspeed of 4480.62 MHz (auto overclock from MB software 24/7 stable)

 

Even at idle state it is still showing +-3400 MHz

 

hope you find an easy solution

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

 

That's beyond weird... I'm running 1440p on a 980Ti and I am generally getting over 70FPS using PWCG with some custom settings.

 

To be fair, I do have a pretty ridiculously high overclock...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You had a CPU bottleneck before and you upgraded your GPU instead, so you don't get a FPS boost. Just because your CPU doesn't run at 100% doesn't mean it isn't the bottleneck. If the game can only use 1-2 cores and one thread (running on one core) is the limiting one, you will get a CPU usage below 50% but still be limited by your CPU, more precise by that core on which the thread is running. A solution to that problem is buying a CPU with a higher IPC or overclocking the current one.

 

One easy way to identify these special CPU bottlenecks is to use MSI Afterburner and monitor the GPU usage, if it drops below 100-99% (without any FPS limiter or VSYNC) it indicates an CPU bottleneck in 99% of all cases.

 

Zettman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you disable HyperThreading, you lose overall heat which can allow you to clock your CPU higher. HyperThreading does nothing for gaming. So the extra heat generated by it simply being enabled can prevent further higher clocks on the CPU. I have an i7-4770k with HT disabled, it runs cooler and I can run at 4.4GHz without HT vs 4GHz with HT and HT is of no benefit so its only win/win. With the i7 there is still a huge benefit from the larger cache and that adds a boost in performance over an equally clocked i5.

 

That's one thing to look at.

 

Another is overall drivers, - make sure everything is up-to-date for the Motherboard and maybe look into updating your motherboard BIOS if it isn't fully updated.

 

Try running DX9 setup again, sometimes that helps.

 

Verify your configuration and that you aren't using an FPS limiter or something else.

 

Check on your AA and Anisotropic settings - what are those set to? Are you using SweetFX for BoS and what are it's AA settings? What are the AA settings in the nVidia CP?

 

Did you do a fresh wipe and install of the graphics drivers?

 

I have 2x780Tis, which is nVidia, and both cards hit around 60% usage. I'm running 2560x1440 using 2x FSAA and 16x Anisotropic. If I do a large formation of He111s and have 6 or so of them in view at close range my fps drops to 40.

 

The devs received assistance from nVidia to get the most of their drivers and cards for the graphics engine, plus other nVidia users do not have the same experience so it isn't the program or some conflict with nVidia hardware.

 

EDIT: I tried 8 x 109F-2 vs 8x MiG-3 at 2500 meters start. 7800 separation. The lowest FPS I got was 48 when looking back at a few fighters, two smoking, at 700meters with the smoke from Stalingrad filling my view with Average clouds (which are pretty thick at 1000meters and I was in the midst of them when my fps was 48) and all ground activity selected. The lowest fps was 48, and it was for a split second. It shot back up to just below 60 but for the most part I averaged around 72fps even amidst the "average" clouds that were quite thick.

 

Also, the more units you have are actually CPU driven. The test of the GPU is really just you on your own, or when having multiple units filling your screen that don't have much AI or physics calculations going on for those units - but the AI calculations and associated physics calculations are almost entirely CPU so the more units are more CPU reliant than GPU. There is some cross over of course, but more AI units are of course more CPU instead of GPU.

Edited by FuriousMeow
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info Furious, I also was tempted to upgrade my GPU to a 980 ish standard, but heard it would not help with my 2,8 i7 . 

I never done a total upgrade.

Does it pay off buying a SSD HD , a 4, something CPU and a 980 TI . Or just buy a new rig?

 

EDIT:

 

Ah never mind, I checked the prices, In my case a new rig is marginally more expensive but would pay off.

 

But I have some questions

 

Is it better to buy a 4,0 quad core than a 3,5 8 core? for this game .

Should I keep using win 7 or just get win 10

 

Is 1 980 TI good enough or does it pay off having two in SLI? I will not upgrade my monitor atm so I will stick to 1950 x 1080 ish 

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quad core with higher frequency will surely bring you more benefits for the game than a slower 8 core. The game won`t use 8 cores.

Just for BoS a 980 Ti surely won`t pay off. Something like a GTX970 should be good enough.

 

I had the same experience with my 980Ti as the author of this thread (and btw. am using the same CPU). Changing from a GTX780 to the GTX980Ti caused even more stuttering in BoS than before. Other sims benefited from the new GPU.

Overclocking my CPU from max. 3.9 Ghz to 4.4Ghz is improving the performance and reducing stuttering. But I still get often low frames down to 35-40 when AI objects appear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the settings like in the attached image, and as well i get 35-40 fps when Al objects appear.

My CPU is not OC, i'm not sure if i should overclock it or not. I enabled only the Turbo Boost.

Yestarday i tried to change the resolution from 3840 x 2160 to 3440 x 1935, and the game runs smoother and  looks  almost the same.

Btw, i use sweetFX

post-84866-0-22064700-1459247792_thumb.jpg

Edited by Avyx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

Maybe not the right topic but i'm also thinking about OC'en my 4790K. But i must admit that i'm struggling to find good info on the net regarding how to's. Anyone knows a good site or tutorial?

 

Thnx

 

Grt Martijn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

Maybe not the right topic but i'm also thinking about OC'en my 4790K. But i must admit that i'm struggling to find good info on the net regarding how to's. Anyone knows a good site or tutorial?

 

Thnx

 

Grt Martijn

 

You have a K processor so you can easily set a high multiplier overclock in your BIOS.

 

Do you have an aftermarket air/liquid cooler? I try to keep my thermals in the 50-50c range to ensure the longevity of my hardware.

 

If your chip is stock at 4GHz start by overclocking to the turbo boost speed of 4.4GHz without adjusting any voltage settings - this would be a multiplier of 44. Getting things up to your turbo speed is like getting a free *guaranteed 400MHz overclock. Keep pushing the overclock 100MHz at a time (or one digit at a time: 44, 45, 46, etc.) until you get to the point that you can't push it any higher on the stock voltage settings - this will give you a safe, effective overclock assuming you can keep your thermals in range.

 

Test the overclock using your choice CPU benchmarking/stress testing utility - I generally go for 12+ hours of stability testing myself but what methodology and timeframe you choose is up to you.

 

*Things happen... If your house burns down due to a failed overclock sue Intel, not me!

Edited by Space_Ghost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a K processor so you can easily set a high multiplier overclock in your BIOS.

 

Do you have an aftermarket air/liquid cooler? I try to keep my thermals in the 50-50c range to ensure the longevity of my hardware.

 

If your chip is stock at 4GHz start by overclocking to the turbo boost speed of 4.4GHz without adjusting any voltage settings - this would be a multiplier of 44. Getting things up to your turbo speed is like getting a free *guaranteed 400MHz overclock. Keep pushing the overclock 100MHz at a time (or one digit at a time: 44, 45, 46, etc.) until you get to the point that you can't push it any higher on the stock voltage settings - this will give you a safe, effective overclock assuming you can keep your thermals in range.

 

Test the overclock using your choice CPU benchmarking/stress testing utility - I generally go for 12+ hours of stability testing myself but what methodology and timeframe you choose is up to you.

 

*Things happen... If your house burns down due to a failed overclock sue Intel, not me!

 

Hi Space_Ghost,

 

Thnxs for the info. I'm aware of the risks, so i tend to take it slow  :).

 

My cooler is an Scythe Mugen 4. I believe it be better then the OEM cooler.

 

Grt M 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have an idea. i have a 680 as well. why don't you send the 980 over to me and i see if i can get a performance gain out of it, deal?  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Space_Ghost,

 

Thnxs for the info. I'm aware of the risks, so i tend to take it slow  :).

 

My cooler is an Scythe Mugen 4. I believe it be better then the OEM cooler.

 

Grt M 

 

I would absolutely upclock to 4.4GHz since the chip is already rated for it and because that cooler should be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just use the Asus AI suite II software that came with my motherboard, one button click and I have had a stable 24/7 4.46GHz overclock since day 1,

 

seeing as I am on what is now a several generations old CPU I would think similar type of software would be available for most/all brands of MB by now,

 

obviously a manual overclock may see better results but why make life complicated, my old 920 i7 took me weeks to get a good and stable manual O/C, new method, one click and all automated until unstable and then resets to last fully stable state, even the way it graphically shows you what it is doing makes you feel like you achieved something yourself LOL

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottleneck nr.1 is physics and AI calculation in on thread. There is no other reason for this game not to run smoothly on upper mid class CPU. Over clocking is just a workaround. Not solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is 1 980 TI good enough or does it pay off having two in SLI? I will not upgrade my monitor atm so I will stick to 1950 x 1080 ish

You won't see a benefit from a second 980Ti unless you upgrade from 1080p to UHD. Even then I would wait for the next generation "Pascal" GPUs coming in a few months.

I ran some tests a while back with 1 Titan X vs SLI. The results were as I mentioned previously. In scenarios with many objects the second GPU didn't help. In situations like a free flight then yes SLI resulted in a higher frame rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanky a lot for your feedback guys!

 

vsync is off, frame limiter is off, AA is set to max, but I did not see any significant performance gain with no AA at all...GPU should do it well after all I'm just running 1920x1080. (using a 120Hz TFT, so it looks quite great to have 120+FPS)

 

So my understanding is, in spite of having a 3,4 / 3,9GHz Quad Core i7, there may be one single thread on one single core, and even if that single core is NOT maxed out, it DOES limit the entiere sims performance plenty?

Why not spread that task on multiple cores then? And why the heck does Win7 Task Manager never show that any core is at 100% load then? Was this "Thread limitation" of that "special thread" talked about by the devs?

 

Goal of programming should be to squeeze every bit of performance out of high end hardware, feels not good to have great CPU and GPU and suffer from only mediocre or even poor performance....

Edited by I/JG27_Nemesis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Luse,

 

I'm on Win7 Professional  and have myself been debating the upgrade to Win10. I've been looking at various articles about the OS in general and am not entirely pleased with the MS' very clear disregard for personal security. Some of the stuff can be disabled, others seem to be disabled but there isn't a consensus on if the data collection and reporting isn't actually stopped. In general, it seems Win10 was built with the premise of giving a very wide open backdoor to not just MS but who knows who else. So that is one thing preventing me from upgrading, and the other is I prefer to go fresh install rather than the upgrade path which takes time to get everything together. So the former is a huge hit for me to want to upgrade, and the second is just inconvenience. What is gained from Windows 10? Just DX12. Eventually DX12 will be the future, just like DX9/10/11, due to the sheer audience it reaches - all Windows owners. So alternate APIs sound nice but will most likely have less games developed for them simply due to the sheer reach DirectX has in general. So, eventually, upgrading to W10 is inevitable but are there any gains right now? I haven't seen any reason, other than it is free.

 

For CPUs with more than 4 cores, most games don't make much use of more than 4 cores so it really isn't a worthwhile investment. Now, an i7 isn't 8 cores. It's 4 physical cores with 4 virtual ones where Hyperthreading comes into play and HT isn't used in games anyway so it is a worthless feature for strictly gaming.

 

Nemesis - this game spans across all 4 cores. Considering the engine was developed for multi-core systems, I'm not sure where this misinformation is coming from that this engine does not work well with multiple cores since it was designed that way from the beginning. Even your screenshot shows all 4 cores being used. That's why BoS requires a quad core CPU while RoF ran on a dual core but gained a lot more performance going to a quad core.

 

Also, keep in mind this is an air combat sim and not the other games out there that do far less on the CPU. Each plane has to have its FM calculated and its AI. More planes, more CPU usage. All of this adds up, and CPU cycles are still cyclical so all of these complex calculations happen one after the other albeit very quickly but eventually adding more and more in a linear fashion means things start to get pushed back a lot which is why a strong CPU with high clock rate is great.

 

I went from a i7-870 (HT disabled, 4GHz overclocked) to a i7-4770k (initially 4GHz overclocked, now at 4.4GHz), but when I ran the 4770k without the overclock (so it turboed to 3.9GHz) it was still 30% faster than the i7 870 in the same situation with lots of AI units. The graphics card was the same as well. This was in RoF, but it still applies to BoS.

 

Each new Intel CPU, only using them as an example because I haven't had AMD in years, introduces not just lower die size, less power consumption, supposed to be less heat output, new features to enhance performance, and sometimes higher clock rates, but also they have higher IPC capability. That's Instructions Per Clock, so each CPU cycle can compute more information at once than the previous generation. That's why a quad core of same clock speed can be 30 to 50% faster than 4 generations prior CPU. And air combat sims are heavily reliant on CPUs due to the calculations they must do to replicate flight on a home computer. Not to mention the weapons/damage modelling, AI, sound system, and also feeding the graphic elements to the GPUs.

 

Right now I'm waiting to see what going to 64bit will do for BoS, I suspect some good things. Not game changing, but good. I'm also waiting for Volta from nVidia to upgrade my graphics cards. Pascal I'm not sure will offer enough over 780Tis in SLI for the current generation of games, and for the next year or two. DirectX12 itself is just now coming out and it will take some time to age/gain experience to really get the most out of it, and it is backwards compatible so while some cards are hardware designed to push some features faster it won't prevent me from playing DX12 games if any come out I want to play.

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, keep in mind, the QMB mission with 8 fighters vs 8 fighters has peaks and troughs in FPS. You'll go as high as your monitor limit and as low as the CPU can process - which is exactly the problem here. If you want a sheer comparison of your graphics card performance upgrade to your previous one, you have to do it with just your plane and no other AI units. That is almost all GPU processing - obviously still CPU processing for your own FM/world physics/etc.

 

The additional units are hitting your CPU and that's why while you upgraded your GPU, the AI units don't get calculated by that so the performance is entirely reliant on your CPU.

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The single core 'misinformation' am sure comes not from BoS which shows above working in four cores, but from the way DX9 api works and its inbuilt restrictions of sharing info between CPU and GPU, most of the rendering command submission/draw calls are done mostly on one thread, with DX9 not being very efficient in this respect. I understand that DX10 and DX11 have a similar limitation, but are much more efficient and thus give better performance respectively, apparently DX12 will make full use of multicore communication and this is where bigger improvements are promised

 

what I say above is probably an incorrect generalisation :) , (I am no expert)  but the 'bottleneck' is not BoS multithreaded programming but the DX9 driver, hence the need for maximised clockspeed over four cores to get the best, and BoS in itself is taxing on CPU by its nature

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited by Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also download, it's free, Aces High III beta. It moved to DX11, it didn't change the poly count of the planes but went from the DX9 to DX11 API. Now, I'm not clear on if they ported it - which is sort of a so-so in terms of performance gain - or if they re-built the engine specifically for DX11 which requires more in-depth changes to the code. Based on the way it is progressing, I believe they are building the engine specifically for DX11 rather than porting it. There are many graphical changes to it, some of them are pretty amazing and something I wish we had here - but I won't go into it because that is a matter for a new graphics engine. There are also other things that are easily noticed - such as the low polys of the aircraft, the simplistic DM and FM, it's a good FM but it's very lacking in the appearance of actually flying, and even more damning is the very short terrain draw distance. It's terribly short. The team behind Aces High also went with FMOD as well, not that it matters because many AAA titles use FMOD but that is also another topic.

 

That being said, the FPS is not appreciably better than BoS/BoM - and in a few cases worse - when running full tilt settings there without AA. It looks great and I love what they did in almost all of the improvements but the FPS is basically the same, to BoS/BoM, with the AA units being limited to circling and nothing truly active - an absent complex FM for the AI units as well.

 

I'm only relaying this because air combat sims are so complex and require so much that GPUs are not the absolute answer to pure performance. Neither are just CPUs. SSDs only improve load times, which I love as I'm totally SSD (sounds like a STD haha) aside from my platter based download drive, and memory can have somewhat of an impact on computation intensive applications like air combat sims so the better the timings in addition to bandwidth can yield some small increase in performance, it really comes down to CPU first when dealing with lots of AI units, and GPU second when just yourself in SP. When in MP, a better CPU helps due to being able to process your own physics and sending data to the GPU but it also has to deal with the MP communications which can involve prediction due to the latency of the internet. I can't imagine it takes a whole lot of CPU since the original MP prediction for air combat sims (which is hugely different than shooters and even racing) ran quite well on 486 CPUs (early CK and early WarBirds).

 

The only reason I bring that up is because air combat sims are the most complex and complicated games out there. They can't be compared to anything else, even the most complex racing game as that is still limited to a very fixed view point with additional items that can be reduced in terms of processing. I'd point out some other air combat sims and the way they reduced processing load but that will result in a sh!tstorm so I'll just say they are there but air combat sims in general have FAR MORE processing demands of a computer system than any other game/sim out there.

 

DX12's multi-threading is not going to lend a lot of increase to air combat sims, because it isn't graphics communications that are the big issue - its actually the stuff crunched by the CPU which DirectX of any version can't assist - the physics that make "flight" appear to actually be flight on a computer.

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would absolutely upclock to 4.4GHz since the chip is already rated for it and because that cooler should be enough.

 

Hi Space_ghost,

 

Thnx for the info! I looked in my BIOS last night and i think i got things figured out. Can i PM you to double check? I don't want to derail this thread.

 

Thnx

 

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Space_ghost,

 

Thnx for the info! I looked in my BIOS last night and i think i got things figured out. Can i PM you to double check? I don't want to derail this thread.

 

Thnx

 

M

 

Please do - I will help in whatever way I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just upgraded my GPU to a 980ti and overclocked my i5 4690K to 4.4. The update to 64-bit for the engine happened at the same time, so I don't know what contributed to what.

 

Running 1080p with 4x sparse-grid multisampling, Ultra settings, 4x terrain and no HDR and no ambient occlusion, GPU utilization normally stays at 30%, meaning in theory I could run in triple-screen setup.

He111 are still an issue, even with the overclock. a quick mission with 8 Russian  fighter AIs vs 8 He111 AIs is smooth-ish at 60 FPS until the He111 come close, then it's down to 30FPS or below. I wrote "smooth-ish" because there are still hickups when I rotate the view suddenly.

 

If the devs add support for VR, getting a stutter-free 90FPS could be a challenge. There is still work to do to get there, I think.

 

Interestingly, the menu keeps the GPU 100% busy with 45 FPS. Seems a bit unnecessary to me, the hangar view isn't kind of dark and uggly anyway. It's a matter of taste and opinion, but I would prefer if they moved the view outside of the hangar.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, the menu keeps the GPU 100% busy with 45 FPS. Seems a bit unnecessary to me, the hangar view isn't kind of dark and uggly anyway. It's a matter of taste and opinion, but I would prefer if they moved the view outside of the hangar.

 

Would support this too.

 

Zettman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just upgraded my GPU to a 980ti and overclocked my i5 4690K to 4.4. The update to 64-bit for the engine happened at the same time, so I don't know what contributed to what.

 

Running 1080p with 4x sparse-grid multisampling, Ultra settings, 4x terrain and no HDR and no ambient occlusion, GPU utilization normally stays at 30%, meaning in theory I could run in triple-screen setup.

He111 are still an issue, even with the overclock. a quick mission with 8 Russian fighter AIs vs 8 He111 AIs is smooth-ish at 60 FPS until the He111 come close, then it's down to 30FPS or below. I wrote "smooth-ish" because there are still hickups when I rotate the view suddenly.

 

If the devs add support for VR, getting a stutter-free 90FPS could be a challenge. There is still work to do to get there, I think.

 

Interestingly, the menu keeps the GPU 100% busy with 45 FPS. Seems a bit unnecessary to me, the hangar view isn't kind of dark and uggly anyway. It's a matter of taste and opinion, but I would prefer if they moved the view outside of the hangar.

Instead of triplescreen, just get a 2560x1440 monitor with gsync. Better in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or go for a 21:9 monitor with either 2560x1080 or 3440x1440 resolution if you are want a wider view.

 

Triple screen is nice and was fun, but I always had the problem that one of the screens (same model but different production month) had a different hue, no matter how much I tried to change the RGB and color settings. Additional you will run in a lot of compability issues with triple screen, more than with the exotic 21:9 monitors from my experience.

 

Zettman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't happen to be using MSI afterburner or Riva tuner?  These both would almost cut my fps in half when used...I had to reset to get the card to run at full speed, for some reason it was only running at 700 MHz or so.  But again its a long shot, disable reset PC and try.  Good Luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,

 

i don't think he did much wrong, the simple fact is, this game scales not so well.

 

Around Christmas i upgraded from a 2600k stock speed/ATI 280X to a 6700K@4.4GHz / Asus 980Ti Strix and i gained about 10-15 fps in IL2 BOS, went from 60 to ~75 in similar circumstances.

Just to compare, in Assetto Corsa my fps nearly doubled, 70-80 to 140-150.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing is they did the same thing in Assetto Corsa as well.  I gained 20-25 fps with them turned off in that game.  These overlays piss me off lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just upgraded my GPU to a 980ti and overclocked my i5 4690K to 4.4. The update to 64-bit for the engine happened at the same time, so I don't know what contributed to what.

 

Running 1080p with 4x sparse-grid multisampling, Ultra settings, 4x terrain and no HDR and no ambient occlusion, GPU utilization normally stays at 30%, meaning in theory I could run in triple-screen setup.

He111 are still an issue, even with the overclock. a quick mission with 8 Russian  fighter AIs vs 8 He111 AIs is smooth-ish at 60 FPS until the He111 come close, then it's down to 30FPS or below. I wrote "smooth-ish" because there are still hickups when I rotate the view suddenly.

 

If the devs add support for VR, getting a stutter-free 90FPS could be a challenge. There is still work to do to get there, I think.

 

Interestingly, the menu keeps the GPU 100% busy with 45 FPS. Seems a bit unnecessary to me, the hangar view isn't kind of dark and uggly anyway. It's a matter of taste and opinion, but I would prefer if they moved the view outside of the hangar.

after the 64-bit update i was able to turn off sparse-grid ms, NO shimmer! and better fps, just a thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after the 64-bit update i was able to turn off sparse-grid ms, NO shimmer! and better fps, just a thought

It's true it's a lot less noticeable than on the Stalingrad map, but it's still there. The Moscow textures are less grainy than the summer textures on the Stalingrad map, but I don't think the rendering engine has changed much in that respect. On the Moscow map, I notice it at the (h)edges of fields, roads...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...