Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chiliwili69

What are the best CPUs for IL-2?

Recommended Posts

Just wanted to share with the large group of non-VR people our latest suspects about best CPUs for BoX.

Apparently, the GPU is not the bottleneck in most of the cases. It is the CPU and RAM speed.

 

Take a look of this thread: 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29322-measuring-rig-performance-common-baseline/page-4

 

If you are thinking to go for a PC upgrade, take into account the following:

 

1.- Current BoX version (2.011) is very much dependent of one thread. So, CPU with good Single-thread index are the best for BoX:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

 

2.- Ryzen CPUs are very good in multithread, but not very good in singlethread. Not good for VR. (Edit: with adequate settings Ryzen works fine in VR)

 

3.- Overclocking the CPU increases fps significatly. Better that you budget for a good CPU cooler.

 

4.- RAM speed influence BoX performance. If you upgrade better to go above 3000MHz

 

5.- Unless you have a special multiple monitor setup, don´t go to top GPUs (above Nvidia GTX 1070) since they will not give you more fps. This is what we saw in VR and in monitor.

 

Hope this helps for your future hardware upgrades

 

EDIT 1: These points are only valid for single GPU rigs (ie, VR, or single monitor with one GPU)

EDIT 2: "Best" is understood as more fps in-game SinglePlayer.

Edited by chiliwili69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryzen "not very good" in single thread? You're losing 20% at max. on Intels most overclocked quadcore. All of those only have 16 PCIe lanes for the system, putting an effective brake on SLI. If you increase sreen resolution it only taxes the GPU more, leaving the CPU unaffected.

 

Even my 4770K is GPU limited with a 1080.

 

So, if you go for the neutered quad cores from Intel, be sure to stay away from the most recent ones, as they have as many issues as the new AMD ones. There is still hardly anything out there that can beat the 4970K in running computer games. And that one is available with motherboards that saw some BIOS updates. But it is good for one GPU only. Else you run it on 8x PCIe, making you waste a lot of money.

 

If it comes to real rig performance, the AMD Ryzen or especially the Threadripper just trash the Intel offerings (or at least CPUs below 1k USD).

 

It is a big irony that the game runs best on purposedly crippled products. But whether a 10-20% advantage in a synthetic benchmark is a whise reason for a future investment, everyone has to decide for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also means that for your everyday applications all that's left concerning CPU bandwith is going through the chipset, that's basically PCIe 4x. That's your SSD, network, all periphery. So much for fast storage. You just can't RAID four NVMe together drives on 1151 chipset mobos. There's no point. it's not gonna be faster than just one. If you have gigabit network activity, even subtract that.

 

On an 8 vs 8 quick mission, my 4770K has about 30% load on core 1 and about 20% on 2, 3, and 4 using 1440p resolution, everything maxed out. How much would I expect if I used a VR gear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to share with the large group of non-VR people our latest suspects about best CPUs for BoX.

Apparently, the GPU is not the bottleneck in most of the cases. It is the CPU and RAM speed.

 

Take a look of this thread: 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29322-measuring-rig-performance-common-baseline/page-4

 

If you are thinking to go for a PC upgrade, take into account the following:

 

1.- Current BoX version (2.011) is very much dependent of one thread. So, CPU with good Single-thread index are the best for BoX:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

 

2.- Ryzen CPUs are good in multithread, but not very good in singlethread. Not good for VR.

 

3.- Overclocking the CPU increases fps significatly. Better that you budget for a good CPU cooler.

 

4.- RAM speed influence BoX performance. If you upgrade better to go above 3000MHz

 

5.- Unless you have a special multiple monitor setup, don´t go to top GPUs (above Nvidia GTX 1070) since they will not give you more fps. This is what we saw in VR and in monitor.

 

Hope this helps for your future hardware upgrades

 

 

2 is blatantly false. The Ryzen CPU's aren't as fast in single thread as the absolute fastest intel CPU's heavily overclocked on liquid cooling. Anything short of that and Ryzen isn't at a disadvantage in single thread. And even so, the difference isn't all that great. I agree Ryzen doesn't work particularly well in VR for the Balapan track at the specified settings, but after a little tweaking I have it running 90 fps pretty much all the time at decent graphics settings in normal gameplay, including MP. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that BoS and DCS need to break up the graphics rendering across more than just 1 core. That thread has shown that hitting 90 fps with any CPU consistently is a real challenge and simply cannot be done out of the box.

Edited by BeastyBaiter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amongst the mid-range CPUs, say an R5 and an i5, is the difference between them - even between their own brethren - in BOX really anything noticeable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For 2d, not really under ideal circumstances, my previous system had an I5-4690 while the new one has an R5 1600x. The 1600x is a little quicker in single thread though only slightly. The reason I went with an R5 over a newer I5 or I7 is so that BoS and other games wouldn't sh*t their pants every time windows decided to do a background task. Been two months and haven't had that issue yet. Was an almost daily occurrence with the I5.

 

I haven't seen anyone mention using an i5 in VR yet outside the Oculus forums. That probably says something all by itself. I still have that i5 system (mostly, a lot was cannibalized for new rig) but wouldn't dare try to plug my Rift into it. OH and steamVR by themselves run 2 threads full tilt pretty much all the time. That doesn't leave much for BoS or any other game.

 

It's worth mentioning that I had no plans of getting a VR headset at the time I built my new system. Only reason I did is due to the massive price drop for OR.

Edited by BeastyBaiter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If it comes to real rig performance, the AMD Ryzen or especially the Threadripper just trash the Intel offerings (or at least CPUs below 1k USD).

 

My post should had been include a note saying: only for singleGPU systems. (I will add that).

 

We were conducting tests for VR where only one GPU is used, and also conducted the test with single monitor and single GPU as well.

So this conclusions are limited for singleGPU rigs.

 

A 7700K is priced 316$, has a singlethread passmark of 2584. When overclocked to 4.8 you get an avg of 85.8 fps in the VR IL-2 benchmark.

A Ryzen 7 1700 is priced 290$, has a singlethread passmark of 1761. At default overcloked to 3.65 you get an avg of 44.6 fps in the VR IL-2 benchmark

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gJmnz_nVxI6_dG_UYNCCpZVK2-f8NBy-y1gia77Hu_k/edit?usp=sharing

 

Similar pricing but half of performance in IL-2 VR.

Everyone to decide themselves.

 

But, if you use the PC for other multithread games or for other professional applications (design, video, etc) which benefit from multithread, then the Ryzen 7 1700 would outperform the 7700K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's your SSD, network, all periphery. So much for fast storage.

 

My post was only referring to fps ingame. Load times (storage) or network activities were not included. Just fps ingame. (I will add this note to the post) 


 

 

On an 8 vs 8 quick mission, my 4770K has about 30% load on core 1 and about 20% on 2, 3, and 4 using 1440p resolution, everything maxed out. How much would I expect if I used a VR gear?
 

 

We have seen on the test that the % load of the core is meaningless. Read the Samuel post in the benchmark thread.

 

When we will have more tests in the table (from VR and Monitor) we will be able to make a guess of the performance you will get in VR based in the performance you get in the monitor at the test settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

2 is blatantly false.

 

You are right. I was writing that  post too fast. As you describe it, with the adequate settings Ryzen is also valid for VR. I will modify the OP.

It is true that the Balapan track is specially demanding, but this was the objective of the test, to stress the rig with BoX.

 

I was saying that more in the way to provide guidance to someone who wants to buy a full new rig to play IL-2 in VR. Starting from there I would tend to go to Intel (7700K or 7740X)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't seen anyone mention using an i5 in VR yet outside the Oculus forums.

 

In the original Balapan track (using original settings, slightly different from the current test procedure) there were several people with i-5 in VR:

post-18865-0-64393700-1503094512_thumb.png

(ingnore the i5-6600K test, since he most likely was running badly the test).

Edited by chiliwili69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the original Balapan track (using original settings, slightly different from the current test procedure) there were several people with i-5 in VR:

attachicon.gifBalapan table-5.png

(ingnore the i5-6600K test, since he most likely was running badly the test).

I suppose the Passmark test numbers are collected from the web for the respective CPU type rather than also run on that particular system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did just a test on my rig, 4770K @ 4.4 GHz, 1080 @ 2 GHz, just using 8 vs 8 low on the deck (I don't have the "reference track") and letting the plane go on AP. It is odd that GFX settings are not really affecting FPS, using ULTRA settings (HDR not active)

 

I'm getting (by eyeballing) about 140 +- 40 FPS. Even if I reduce to the lowest resolution in windowed mode. GPU-z tells me about 50% GPU usage, 3 Gb VRAM usage, and limitation by reliability voltage. This means the card is under considerable stress, even though it only shows about 50% use (at max clock).

 

This is odd to me as scaling the window size for instance lets you find the point from where your system gets CPU limited in (back then in FSX) Prepar3d. The core running fiber thread would be at 100% usage at this point and it is the point where max FPS is reached. Scaling the window up further would leave FPS constant until the GPU is maxed out, then FPS start to drop further.

 

It seems to me that BoX really is careful in not putting too much strain on the GPU as clocks directly seem to scale in FPS. So for most common GPUs, the game should be CPU limited. Also turning mirrors on and off just subtracts maybe 10 FPS in "complex" mode.

 

So I understand the yearning for highly OC'd cores. latest Intel CPUs delivers about 10% higher performance per clock than Ryzen, plus they can be made to clock about 15% higher. So they are clearly in the lead when it comes to push for 120 FPS MINIMUM to run your VR gear.

 

But if it is really the case as I observed it, I doubt VR has a "mainstream chance" on BoX, unless the devs scale over more cores. Having the fastest singe core plus pushing that one to 5 GHz or so justhas no future. We're reaching a rather hard barrier there, so there will hardly be products following that can do that in the mainstream. On the contrary, mainstream will provide more cores. AMD just forced Intel to follow their lead.

 

I'd love to go VR as well, but it seems it is still very, very makeshift.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I suppose the Passmark test numbers are collected from the web for the respective CPU type rather than also run on that particular system?

 

Yes, it was collected from the web.

 

In the new table (with the new test, very similar to the original) we also include the user Passmark test:

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gJmnz_nVxI6_dG_UYNCCpZVK2-f8NBy-y1gia77Hu_k/edit#gid=1870565807 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So for most common GPUs, the game should be CPU limited.

 

This is exactly what we saw with the tests. People who want IL-2 VR should put more attention to the CPU/RAM/Overclocking rather than GPU. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Having the fastest singe core plus pushing that one to 5 GHz or so justhas no future

 

There is always the option to run it in Low or Balanced mode.

 

If people wants to run it at High or Ultra, they just need to know three things:

 

1. Affordable intel CPUs are good for IL-2 VR (4790K, 7700K, 7740X)

2. You will need a good CPU cooler since you MUST do Overclocking. MoBo tools allows an easy OC (you don´t need to be an expert, I am not)

3. Include top RAM speed (3000MHz or above)

 

I think there is future for IL-2 VR. I have seen that the IL-2 VR group is increasing every month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is always the option to run it in Low or Balanced mode.

 

If people wants to run it at High or Ultra, they just need to know three things:

 

1. Affordable intel CPUs are good for IL-2 VR (4790K, 7700K, 7740X)

2. You will need a good CPU cooler since you MUST do Overclocking. MoBo tools allows an easy OC (you don´t need to be an expert, I am not)

3. Include top RAM speed (3000MHz or above)

 

I think there is future for IL-2 VR. I have seen that the IL-2 VR group is increasing every month.

Thnx for the link to the Balapan track!

 

I meant with "no future", it holds no mid or long term future for the devs. It's just about the maximum that they can expect for a mostly single threaded program. But as many cores are getting a commodity, it is silly leaving that power to waste. Although many tasks are hard or maybe inefficient to make run parallel on many CPUs, I see is no way around it eventually should there ever be a significant step ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CPU may be overestimated for smooth game play.

 

I'm running BOX at Ultra Settings and the highest quality nvidia drivers settings on my Intel I5-6400 @2.7Ghz without any lacks and stuttering at native 2560x1440 display resolution.

 

Graphic card is a (overclocked) NVidia 1060 6GB, monitor supports and runs with Nvidia G-Sync (G-Sync instead of Vsync).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

CPU may be overestimated for smooth game play. I'm running BOX at Ultra Settings and the highest quality nvidia drivers settings on my Intel I5-6400 @2.7Ghz without any lacks and stuttering at native 2560x1440 display resolution.

 

For FullHD or 2K in single monitor many CPUs/RAM are quite valid to play IL-2. The post was put for people who want to invest in hardware to increase their current fps (to know what hardware impact most the fps).

 

VR is much more demanding than FullHD or 2K monitor, and CPU is the most influencing factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Graphic card is a (overclocked) NVidia 1060 6GB, monitor supports and runs with Nvidia G-Sync (G-Sync instead of Vsync).

 

I also used G-sync when used my 4K-60Hz monitor bought about 2 years ago. But now only use VR.

G-sync was doing a very good work when the fps were not reaching 60fps with my old i7-4790. G-sync is a very good complement for CPU that cannot maintain the desired fps.

Based in the single-thread performance of the i5-6400, I think it would have difficulties to maintain 60fps at 4K. But with G-Sync you should not worry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bos is multi thread application as stated by devs many times, but is also true that some things are computed together and could be separated in the future for better multi core utilisation. For example my i7 6700k together with GTX 1070, 16GB 3300Mhz running at 3440x1440 ultra preset are doing fine, fps ranging from 80-170 in most cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Intel I7 4790k with Turbo @4,4 GHz

Would it help if I OC it to 4,8 GHz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I had i5 2500K OC to 4,5Ghz yield significant increase in fps. But if I had 60+ in most cases I wouldn't do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 10 % fps?

 

I don't think there is an exact equivalence to be expected.

 

Getting past 4.5GHz didn't increase my frames as much as it did stabilize the average and allow me to fly with more objects in PWCG while still maintaining close to a 1:1 sim cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bos is multi thread application as stated by devs many times, but is also true that some things are computed together and could be separated in the future for better multi core utilisation. For example my i7 6700k together with GTX 1070, 16GB 3300Mhz running at 3440x1440 ultra preset are doing fine, fps ranging from 80-170 in most cases

 

Yes, but it seems that there is one thread of IL-2 which is too heavy and bottleneck the core it is running. This is reported by Samuel in the thread:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29322-measuring-rig-performance-common-baseline/

 

Do you OC?

Everyone is welcome to run the IL-2 performance test in the mentioned post even if they don´t use VR.

 

 

I have the Intel I7 4790k with Turbo @4,4 GHz Would it help if I OC it to 4,8 GHz?

 

I reported this experiment in this thread:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29881-overclocking-4790k-better-bos-performance/ 

Edited by chiliwili69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I have a i7 7700K 4.7 GHz....32g 2400 memory and a 1060 6g. Where's my bottleneck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I have a i7 7700K 4.7 GHz....32g 2400 memory and a 1060 6g. Where's my bottleneck?

Depends on your screen resolution. But most likely still your CPU. But let's call it the "limiting component". The bottleneck is the one main thread that runs most of the games logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ok, I have a i7 7700K 4.7 GHz....32g 2400 memory and a 1060 6g. Where's my bottleneck?

 

Do you fly VR or monitor?

If VR, it depends on the supersampling and graphics settings

If monitor, it depends on resolution and graphics settings

 

You can run the test mentioned above to compare your performance with your rig peers.

 

Having a 7700K and depending on your CPU cooler you could go a bit further with your OC. (4.8 or perhaps a bit more)

Also, faster RAM (3200 to 4400) could give you some more extra frames if needed.  But you will not need 32GB, 16Gb is more than enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Single monitor at 1920x1080. This is a built gaming system, so I didn't pick the components. That's why the high memory. I haven't found any sim whether flight or race that I can't run smooth at high graphic settings.

 

I haven't checked the fps in IL2 BOS. Is there a key press that shows it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Single monitor at 1920x1080.

 

In that case you have a perfect rig from all points of view. You will be able to run at ultra without dropping from 60fps at any time.

If your monitor run at higher frequency 90 or, 144Hz then I think you will be fine in most of the scenes.

 

The fps counter default key is the backspace. You will see a small green number at the very top right corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok. thanks. I'll go see what i'm getting for fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess i'm safe. I had the fps limit on 80fps and that's what I got. I then turned it up to 144fps and got that. So, I turned off the limit and was getting 205fps. That's too much strain on it, so I went back to 80fps and i'll leave it there.

 

Monitor refresh rate is 60hz. At some point I want a bigger monitor in the 32-34" range. My vision is not great at my age and a bigger monitor will help me spot planes.

Edited by BuzzU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Monitor refresh rate is 60hz. At some point I want a bigger monitor in the 32-34" range. My vision is not great at my age and a bigger monitor will help me spot planes.

 

When you go to a bigger monitor, and if you want to spot better, you can go to a higher resolution. Based in your 205 fps, Your rig will be power enough to run 2K (1440p) monitors at 60Hz. And most likely also at 4K (2160p) touching a bit the settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I have a i7 7700K 4.7 GHz....32g 2400 memory and a 1060 6g. Where's my bottleneck?

 

The weakest part of that setup is the GPU.

 

The CPU limitations have more to do with the game than with your setup itself.

If you feel like upgrading something, go for the GPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I had in mind when I bought it. The GPU is easy enough to change out. However, I was surprised at how well the 1060 works, so i'll wait awhile.

 

As for the monitor, I plan to up the resolution on the new one, but that will have to wait a bit too. Two weeks start my bear hunt and then the elk hunt after that. They suck all the spare money out of me, but me and my dog eat lots of meat, so I have to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, both sides are right and wrong.

 

Chiliwili should know that our findings only apply to VR, there indeed the bottleneck is the CPU. I wonder whether physics calculations are doubled, one separate instance for each eye. No idea. But we cannot make statements for 2D gaming based on VR tests, even if we got a few hundred runs of a dozen different systems in VR, like we do. Without VR, the CPU indeed seems not to be a bottleneck.

 

 

What the others ("Ryzen defenders") should know is that indeed Ryzen cannot handle VR, unfortunately. It's for 2D gamers on monitors. Its single thread performance is not high enough , a certain treshhold must be reached in order to not throttle the whole game down and get dropped frames in VR. Whether this is due to Ryzen's design as multicore powerboat or a game engine that runs on a few threads is up to you to decide.

Edited by 1CAG_Fenris_Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryzen handles VR just fine, there are only 2 games where I don't have a locked 90 fps all the time in VR with my 1600x, those are BoS and DCS. And it isn't because of the detailed physics engines, it's the graphics engines that drag it down. Ultimately, both are extremely old game engines. DCS dates to the mid 1990's while BoS is a solid 10 years old. BoS's foundation was written when the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP's were considered amazing. This is a game engine limitation, not a hardware issue. Incidentally, the 7700k, the fastest CPU in single thread ever made, can't run BoS or DCS at 90 fps either in VR without a hefty overclock. This isn't an Intel vs AMD thing, BoS and DCS simply need to be updated to make better use of modern CPU's. There is no excuse for a game having a CPU bottleneck when it only uses of 1/4th of an ordinary consumer CPU's total processing power.

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...