Real world Ryzen 5 1600 performance in BoS

[Dakpilot]

How is the real world experience of people using this (Ryzen 5 1600 not X) cpu, stock clocks in actual gameplay use, I am forced to do an upgrade and the price point in my area is very appealing rather than going "full retard" with 8700k etc. Considering that I have 4K 60hz screen which was just acceptable with Gtx 970, and a "cheaper" system upgrade would allow for a better GPU .

So what could I expect cpu performance wise from those with experience of current state BoS with a Ryzen 1600?. My usual advice to myself is not to hold back at upgrade time... But now I am not so sure, 8700K/8600K + Gtx10xx is VERY expensive in my part of the world, but if I am going to spend bigish bucks anyway for a new system, things must be much better than my old rig (in sig)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[BeastyBaiter]

I have the 1600X, so can't say exactly how the regular 1600 would work without underclocking (could do, but don't have time for that at the moment). I can say that with a GTX 1080 TI, the limiting factor in BoS and DCS 1.5 is the CPU's single thread performance. Interestingly, the limiting factor in DCS 2.x is actually the 1080 TI (for monitor). This is a post I made several months ago for VR performance in a very busy track, but it should give you an idea of what to expect if you overclock the 1600 to around 4 GHz. This can be done easily with a basic air cooler, possibly even the included one for the 1600. Anyways, see the graph in my post below.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29322-measuring-rig-performance-common-baseline/?p=496339

 

 

Edit: The 1080p result is probably at stock clock speeds (3.7 GHz) or with the HUD on. I find it hard to believe the 1080p result is actually slower than the 1440p result, and the GPU wasn't terribly stressed in either case. So I clearly made a mistake in there somewhere.

 

Edit 2: Given your current specs, switching to a Ryzen CPU would actually be a downgrade in single thread performance. Thus your average FPS in BoS might actually go down under ideal conditions. That doesn't mean the CPU is garbage or less capable, it's a whole lot faster overall. It's simply that BoS does not take advantage of the cores/threads. Most modern games do, but BoS is based on a very old engine that does not. This does have an advantage when other things are running though. I dropped my old i5-4690 for the 1600x because every time windows decided it needed to update or something else happened in the background, just about any game would become unplayable. The old quad cores just don't have enough cores to run games reliably. I also had some longstanding issues with the motherboard and wanted updated I/O, so it was time to move on regardless. I've gone full retard and ordered an 8700k though. 1440p (and 4k performance I'm sure) are excellent with the Ryzen chips, but VR doubles the graphics rendering CPU usage and the single thread performance of Ryzen at 4.0 GHz falls just ever so slightly short of the 5.5ms per eye frame times needed for 90 fps in VR in BoX.

Edited November 12, 2017 by BeastyBaiter

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Ryzen single-thread performance is quite poor compared to Intel. Unfortunately, this is what matters for Il-2. Ryzen is not really an 'upgrade' from a 3570K at 4.46Ghz.

 

If you want very high performance, purchase a recent quad-core Intel CPU. However, 8700K/8600K might not even be necessary. An overclocked i3-8350K could give you a nice boost. 

 

If you're willing to hold out a little longer, perhaps see how new products coming in 2018 perform. As always, upgrading is never an easy decision.  

[BeastyBaiter]

I wouldn't call it poor compared to Intel. It is poor compared to unlocked and heavily overclocked Intel chips. The instant you look at a locked chip, like say the shiny new i5-8400, Ryzen's single thread performance starts looking pretty good. Example: i5-8400 vs $50 cheaper R5 1600X (clocked to 4GHz).

 

Passmark result:

R5 1600x: 2130 for single thread, 14k+ for multithread

i5-8400: 2200 for single thread, 11.4k for multithread

 

The i5 is an incredable 3% faster in single thread at the expense of being 18% slower overall in that particular benchmark. Out of all the CPU benchmarks I've seen used, that is the best case scenario for Intel. Most show Ryzen doing better by comparison.

Edited November 12, 2017 by BeastyBaiter

[GridiroN]

Ryzen single-thread performance is quite poor compared to Intel. Unfortunately, this is what matters for Il-2. 

 

No it's not and no it doesn't. Ryzen's single threaded performance is like 85%+ Intels, and my CPU usage in sim is like 7% across 4 cores in IL2. I doubt trading my 7600K for a R5 1600 would make any difference. 

Edited November 12, 2017 by GridiroN

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

It is true that Ryzen has good price/performance ratio at lower tiers. However, it seems OP is looking for a high-end solution to replace the already competent overclocked 3570K. In this case, neither i5-8400 nor Ryzen are substantial upgrades. It only makes sense to aim higher in my opinion. 

 

No it's not and no it doesn't. Ryzen's single threaded performance is like 85%+ Intels, and my CPU usage in sim is like 7% across 4 cores in IL2. I doubt trading my 7600K for a R5 1600 would make any difference. 

 

This is not true. Single-thread CPU performance is absolutely critical for Il-2.

 

"85%+ of Intel", while not terribly poor, still translates into significantly lower frame rates. The CPU can still be the bottleneck even when the shown usage is less than 99%.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[Dakpilot]

I have been travelling and away from BoS since April,on return I found my motherboard has died so have no real idea what current performance would be on my rig. It sounds like a Ryzen 1600 would be a bit of a "sideways" upgrade, especially as I do very little that would use the benefits of Ryzen architecture.. I guess an 8600k is probably on the cards, beans and gruel is on the future menu then.

Thanks for all the inputs

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[BeastyBaiter]

Yeah, Ryzen would be more of a side grade in the case of BoS and DCS. I don't think it would be a downgrade, but it wouldn't be an upgrade either (under ideal conditions, as I've already explained). The real advantage of Ryzen is when using modern game engines with proper multi-threading or in professional workloads which also take advantage of the extra cores/threads. As I've said, they work absolutely fine in both BoS and DCS on a monitor, but for VR, really the only option is a current i3/i5/i7 running at 4.7 GHz or better. If you could hit that with a Ryzen chip, they'd do just as well (clock for clock they are almost identical) but sadly they seem to hit a cap at 4.0 GHz. This has nothing to do with cooling, they run ice cold compared to Intel's space heaters. But for whatever reason the chips lose all stability above that magic 4.0 GHz mark. Silicone lottery winners can push 4.1 in some cases, but it's rare. My particular 1600X will do 4.1 with more voltage than I'm comfortable with, though even then cooling with a basic $25 air cooler isn't an issue. I typically leave it stock and only bump it to 4.0 for BoS and DCS in VR.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Why single thread for IL2 so important when the game uses 4 cores pretty evenly

7-10% usage on 4 out of 8 cores when in heavy dogfight scenes online..

Now I know WT only uses 1 cpu core/thread

[BeastyBaiter]

True about WT, but BoX is also heavily dependent on a single thread. I just ran the Balapan track we use for VR benching, at absolute max detail (2x AA) at 1440p. This is the hardware usage:

 

 

As you can see, the game does use several threads but thread 1 is getting hammered while the rest are all either idle or only lightly used. It's also worth noting that the GTX 1080 TI is pretty much fully used as well. So as said, Ryzen is great in BoX on a monitor. The difference between a Coffee Lake chip and a Ryzen chip is largely theoretical for monitor results since the 1600X and 1080 Ti are reasonably balanced. But VR is another matter, which is why I'm switching to the 8700k once it shows up in the mail. VR takes that heavily hit CPU thread and effectively doubles the load on it. Since it doesn't have enough performance to handle that, the result is it eats into frame rates heavily.

 

Edit: I should point out I did not have the R5 1600x or GTX 1080 TI overclocked in this test.

Edited November 12, 2017 by BeastyBaiter

[CanadaOne]

If BOX really needs the one core more than anything else, does this make the i3-7350K - trashed by almost all on youtube - a good choice? (Assuming BOX is the only consideration.)

 

Two cores at 4.2 out of the box looks attractive if the price is right and the two threads left over are only lightly used.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

An overclocked i3-7350K would not be very good. Yes, it has two fast cores, but the game really does need a quad core for the best performance.

 

The i3-8350K, on the other hand, would be much better with its four cores. 

[BeastyBaiter]

No, because Windows also has to run. The i3-7350k will run 60 fps on monitor most of the time I think, but that's not really saying much. It's also a really bad value, the price to performance ratio is among the worst of modern-ish desktop CPU's.

[CanadaOne]

I bought an i5-6500 because, amongst other reasons, a reviewer I like cited it as a good mid level "workhorse" CPU. Nothing fancy, but it will do most things well enough and the 1151 socket allows me to up to an i7-7700K if I ever feel the need, or can afford it.

 

That said, I did take a long look at the 7350K. 4.2 Ghz is a sweet way to catch some attention.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Yeah, Intel's offerings are all solid for general-purpose computing, expensive though they may be.

 

I have spoken rather harshly about Ryzen, but admittedly it is nice to finally have competitive options from AMD to keep things interesting. 

[BeastyBaiter]

Very true Candada, it's why I opted for the 1600X over the 1600. I wanted a guaranteed 4.0 GHz, not a maybe. But in that case the price difference is negligible. If you do want to swap CPU's out, I recommend the 7700k. You can get them used for practically nothing now. Hell, even brand new they are really cheap. The 8350K, 8600K and 8700K basically wrecked the whole Kabylake lineup.

Edited November 13, 2017 by BeastyBaiter

[Dakpilot]

In my part of the world due to low volumes and import taxes prices don't really drop after release, for example a Rift is US 1200 dollars from mainstream discount store/local Amazon,(cannot justify no matter how fun, maybe next generation) and you cannot buy a 7700K for less than 400+ US, second hand prices are also still premium due to rarity.. Upgrades have to be planned carefully this is the second motherboard I have had prematurely die due to corrosion (hazard of living close to the ocean) next purchase I will be changing brand with the hope of better durability.

With my 3570k I got significantly better performance in BoS after overclocking to 4.46ghz, you need 4 cores minimum, but they also need to be fast to avoid bottleneck. 8600k seems to be sweet spot currently, after good MB and decent ram the price jump from 8400 overall is not too bad, even though still ridiculously expensive, Ryzen 1600 option is still very good value but personally (I feel) I need an obvious performance increase and at least some headroom and perceived future proofing for this once every 4 or 5 year significant purchase

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I doubt you will notice any significant gains, couple FPS perhaps. While Il-2 keeps hammering 1-2 cores, it fails to utilize all available resources properly. Further optimizations are needed. Also, 8600k is not future proofing at all. Absence of HT is one thing, but completely different is chipset - Coffeelake will not be compatible with future chipsets, thus its one time cpu + mobo purchase with no further upgrades down the road. 

 

If you want a significant performance increase than year 2017 is not for you. Ryzen is a great option since it doubles cores and threads (speaking of R7 lineup) but leaves something to be desired in terms of clocks, perhaps Pinnacle Ridge will narrow this gap. Intel lineup is ok(-ish) but the only true winners here are 8700k and 8400, rest is mediocre. And Coffeelake cpus at the moment are still barely available, not to mention platform is not destined to live long life.  

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Indeed, 'future proofing' rarely works out in the world of PC hardware. 

 

However, a 8600K or similar will provide a significant performance boost over the 3570K that needs to be replaced. The greater overclocking potential (~5Ghz) combined with small IPC gains and faster memory might give you a double-digit percent FPS increase.

[Dakpilot]

Perhaps I should have been more clear in saying 'future proofing' regards 8600k, I am only thinking of personal use, it is unlikely that more than 6 cores will be utilised fully in BoS for the lifetime of my rig and the ability to overclock at a later stage to 5ghz will keep its speed relevant.

It is frustrating but I HAVE to upgrade right now, Ryzen 1700 would be an option but locally it's cost is soo close to i7 8700k that the i7 smokes it, coupled with very limited choice of AMD motherboards of lower comparable features available locally makes ryzen 7/X (for me in my market) not a realistic choice.. Which is a shame. Z370 chipset will likely be dead end but what choice? and is available locally right now, And in reality I have never personally had a real world successful chance to extend the life of a rig with a later issue of better cpu when initially buying at the higher end of the market.

My 'cunning' budget ryzen 1600 idea does not seem likely to fly (for my needs)

Can I convince myself that an i7 8700k is a "reasonable" option over 8600k despite such high cost?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[CanadaOne]

At the present moment, looking at cost, availability, and performance - not to mention BOX's needs - isn't the 7700K the best CPU to get?

 

That first big fat core at 4.2 going to 4.5 (without OC), with the extra cores at 4.2 and the extra threads, I mean, I'm no tech genius by any stretch, but isn't that pretty much the cat's ass for BOX?

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

I did achieve better and more stable fps with my old i5 3570K than the Ryzen users (we collected performance information with the balapan test track in IL 2 in the VR forums).

 

I am now with an i7 7700K, which is a beast.

[ICDP]

I went from a i7 4770K at 4.5GHz to a Ryzen 1700X at 3.8 GHz, both driving a 4K monitor.  Performance at 4K in single threaded games is identical, where Ryzen shines is when multitasking or making use of multiple cores.

 

At 4K your GPU becomes the bottleneck.  There will be no more than 1 or 2 FPS difference between Ryzen 1600 and even a highly clocked i7.

 

My own experience using BOX at 4K indicates that you will see no difference in performance at 4K.

 

Look at the 4K charts on this 8700K review to see  that even overclocking an I7 8700K from 3.7GHz to 5.0GHz makes zero difference in 4K gaming.  Some of these games are older single threaded games.

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/13.html

 

Here is an image taken during a campaign mission from IL2 BOX.

 

This is at 4K ultra graphics settings and 60 FPS cap.

AMD Vega 64 GPU is only at 77% usage because of the frame cap.

R7 1700X at 3.8GHz and more than 1x CPU core is indeed used.

Edited November 13, 2017 by ICDP

[Dakpilot]

At 4K with my Gtx970 I could easily get

100% usage, the card was a bottle neck, however when I overclocked the 3570k my min frames increased and real world game play was noticeably smoother. Running 4k at ultra settings will obviously bottle neck any card, however what CPU/ghz do you need to maintain 60fps minimums as far as game physics etc are concerned with overhead to feed the GPu, when I dropped the resolution to 1080p I was still suffering drops of min f/r but I don't remember if GPU was still 100% and I obviously can't test now

Are heavy clouds and particle effects purely a load on GPU or do these also effect CPU load?

 

The 1700X graphs above appear to show 1 core maxed out indicating single thread bottle neck, or am I not understanding correctly I can be a bit slow

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Most visual effects affect GPU load more than CPU load. Generally, lowering graphics quality settings makes frame rates more dependent on CPU performance by easing GPU bottlenecks.

 

Minimum frame rates depend on both CPU and GPU in a rather complicated way. At 3840×2160, the GTX970 is the main limiting factor, so the variance between any modern quad-core processors will be quite small. However, upgrading the graphics card (perhaps to Volta in a few months?), switching to VR, or lowering the render quality will all increase the effect of CPU performance. 

 

A single core close to 100% often indicates that the CPU is limiting performance. However, this is not strictly necessary because some CPU-limited games show CPU usage well below 100% despite it being the bottleneck. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

My kind of problem is in some fashion similar since I'm running 3440x1440p at 100hz. There is a gsync but it has its own quirks and flaws. Anyway, thing is that with 1080Ti and Core i7 2600k at 4.9 Ghz I get smooth gameplay unless I run into a massive group of players or I fly on Finnish server which tends to drop my frames all the way to 40s. No hardware will guarantee at 4k that you will have all the time 60 FPS. For that brief time I had 4k monitor I did all kinds of stuff to set it fixed, but its just the way resources are underutilized. 

[Dakpilot]

I guess the question is do people with 7700K's overclocked at 5ghz also experience big frame drops/low min fps when there is a lot of action going on?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Yes, even overclocked 7700K will experience frame rate drops, although their significance depends on individual requirements. 

 

Assuming sufficient GPU capability, a 7700K setup will exceed 60 fps under all but the most extreme actions. However, some people are aiming for 90, 100, 120, or even higher because they are using certain monitors or VR. That is where the overclocked 7700K really becomes significant for avoiding those minimums. 

[ICDP]

At 4K with my Gtx970 I could easily get

100% usage, the card was a bottle neck, however when I overclocked the 3570k my min frames increased and real world game play was noticeably smoother. Running 4k at ultra settings will obviously bottle neck any card, however what CPU/ghz do you need to maintain 60fps minimums as far as game physics etc are concerned with overhead to feed the GPu, when I dropped the resolution to 1080p I was still suffering drops of min f/r but I don't remember if GPU was still 100% and I obviously can't test now

Are heavy clouds and particle effects purely a load on GPU or do these also effect CPU load?

 

The 1700X graphs above appear to show 1 core maxed out indicating single thread bottle neck, or am I not understanding correctly I can be a bit slow

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

The 1700X graphs show

1 core at 97.8%

1 core at 45%

2 cores at 8.5% (most likely HWiNFO and GPU-Z)

 

So BOX is NOT as implied in this thread, purely singled threaded and a decent CPU is NOT a bottleneck in BOX (or any other game) at 4K. 

 

More 4k gaming charts and as can be seen most decent CPUs are giving similar performance at 4K in gaming.

 

https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-6c12t-cpu-review/10/

 

Let me put it another way, running my 1700X at 4.0GHz compared to stock at 3.4GHz gives NO significant performance boost to either minimums or maximum FPS in BOX.

[Dakpilot]

The 1700X graphs show

1 core at 97.8%

1 core at 45%

2 cores at 8.5% (most likely HWiNFO and GPU-Z)

 

So BOX is NOT as implied in this thread, purely singled threaded and a decent CPU is NOT a bottleneck in BOX (or any other game) at 4K. 

 

More 4k gaming charts and as can be seen most decent CPUs are giving similar performance at 4K in gaming.

 

https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-6c12t-cpu-review/10/

 

Let me put it another way, running my 1700X at 4.0GHz compared to stock at 3.4GHz gives NO significant performance boost to either minimums or maximum FPS in BOX.

I did not mean to imply BoS is purely single threaded, I did state earlier in the thread that it needs 4 cores (but preferably fast ones) although I still feel that the 4k performance charts are a bit misleading and show nothing more than that at ultra settings 4K a Gtx 1080Ti will be bottlenecked and the limiting factor, that chart taken on it's own implies that there is no more benefit to having anything better than an i5 7400 or a Ryzen 5 1500, which again I don't think is the real big picture.

I guess I should rather be asking why the F can't "premium" motherboard manufacturers make more durable boards.. then I would have had money to just get a Gtx 1080ti and everyone would have been spared this thread.. Because it would seem that a 3750k should still run BoS fine(ish)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, there are manufacturers and manufacturers. Asus was for a long time considered best, but in the last few years I grew to a conclusion that they've dropped the ball. They charge premium for all their hardware due to "brand" but they seem to have various issues. My Asus Strix DLX sound card has poor screening and software is inferior to that of competition, my mobo from Asus had problems with USB 3.0 ...

This days I'd recomment getting a decent Asrock. From a low end motherboard manufactuer they seem to have grown to a high quality one. Taichi board series are almost legendary by now.

 

3750k should run BoS fine, if 2600k can. GPU matters the most. But if you have to buy cpu than you wont go bad either with Ryzen or Coffeelake.

[icecream]

I guess the question is do people with 7700K's overclocked at 5ghz also experience big frame drops/low min fps when there is a lot of action going on?

 

Cheers Dakpilot,

I've experienced zero drops on my 8700k@5Ghz with a 1.275Vcore and a 1080ti at 1440P(165hz) even with the UI enabled.

 

 

Delidding this next week, for a 5.3Ghz+ hopefully. think i got a decent batch, because the temps are not gonna hold it for a few hours in Asus Realbench or OCCT w/o delidd.

[ZachariasX]

I guess I should rather be asking why the F can't "premium" motherboard manufacturers make more durable boards..

 

You can buy such parts. Industry grade. With a price tag for the crowd that doesn't spend their personal money. You will not likely find OC functionality on those boards.

 

Also you can look in the traditional offerings. ASUS for instance has the "ROG" line that has empahsis on overclocking and features, you have the STRIX line that is cheap and then you have the TUF line that supposedly is built to last and they give you a 5 year warranty with those parts. It might be an option for you. (In 5 years time, you should be able to reach their support without your product warranty expiring.)

 

 

Asus was for a long time considered best, but in the last few years I grew to a conclusion that they've dropped the ball.

 

I have a HERO VI mainboard with a defective clock. I got replacements, and they all had that issue. The whole batch was rotten. ASUS still left it to the consumer to make the recall. That's the world we live in now.

Edited November 14, 2017 by ZachariasX

[Dakpilot]

I've experienced zero drops on my 8700k@5Ghz with a 1.275Vcore and a 1080ti at 1440P(165hz) even with the UI enabled.

 

 

Delidding this next week, for a 5.3Ghz+ hopefully. think i got a decent batch, because the temps are not gonna hold it for a few hours in Asus Realbench or OCCT w/o delidd.

Poop! In a way I really wish you had not posted that...

 

I had nearly convinced myself to go the more budget route.. And with volta coming next year I have some head scratching to do

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Toxin1]

Just to chime in on the i5 8600K route.  I just did an upgrade to this CPU @ 5 Ghz and a 1080ti from a i5 3750K@4.2Ghz/1070.  I was seeing deteriorating performance (in VR only) with the Spitfire and Kuban map releases along with the graphic additions and took the plunge. I have a G-sync 1440p and triple monitor setup and it also runs smoother, but I was not hurting with the old system. I would have gone for the i7 8700K, but due to absent availability and impatients grabbed an i5.  You will notice an increase in performance mainly due to the overall system improvement.  I would not go with a 7700K unless it was significantly cheaper for you as 6-cores/6 threads is slightly better than 4-cores/8 threads.  My motherboard is the MSI Gaming M5.  All the best

Edited November 16, 2017 by Toxin1

[SeaW0lf]

I had nearly convinced myself to go the more budget route.. And with volta coming next year I have some head scratching to do

 

You could buy a cheap / used H61 or H75 for the time being to keep using your i5-3570K and then update it all in 2018 (just around the corner) with Volta, Coffee Lake, DDR4, M.2 and all the bling you can get.

Edited November 17, 2017 by SeaW0lf

[BeastyBaiter]

Just to chime in on the i5 8600K route.  I just did an upgrade to this CPU @ 5 Ghz and a 1080ti from a i5 3750K@4.2Ghz/1070.  I was seeing deteriorating performance (in VR only) with the Spitfire and Kuban map releases along with the graphic additions and took the plunge. I have a G-sync 1440p and triple monitor setup and it also runs smoother, but I was not hurting with the old system. I would have gone for the i7 8700K, but due to absent availability and impatients grabbed an i5.  You will notice an increase in performance mainly due to the overall system improvement.  I would not go with a 7700K unless it was significantly cheaper for you as 6-cores/6 threads is slightly better than 4-cores/8 threads.  My motherboard is the MSI Gaming M5.  All the best

 

No kidding on availability. I'm pretty sure newegg got a batch of several thousand a couple days ago. I say that cause they weren't sold out within 5 minutes but also didn't make it a full 12 hours before being sold out again. I managed to grab one in the afternoon they were available, turned up today. I did highly detailed benchmarks of DCS both at 1440p and in VR with the 1600x while waiting. Will do the same over the weekend with the 8700k to see how they compare. Obviously the 8700k costs way more than the 1600x does, ~$320 total for CPU ($220) + Mobo ($90) + cooler ($25) vs ~$650 total for the 8700k ($420) + mobo ($160) + cooler ($70). I didn't retest BoS but have already posted results here based on the balapan test track. Will run those again too.

 

I ended up with:

CPU: I7-8700k

Mobo: ASRock Extreme4

Cooler: Arctic Liquid Freezer 120

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Ok thats Odd...

Why is Ryzen only using 1 core for IL2?

When this is my FX8350 (stock 4.2ghz turbo) Windows 7 Home Premium.
Running IL2 in Recording of Heavy Combat playback with lots of effects on screen. (no background progs like trackIr or discord running, Just the game)



Something seems very wrong with ryzen then? or Windows 10?.
If i disabled all Core Affinity and force IL2 to run on Core 0 Only(#1 in the pic)
I loose 70-75% of my fps (100fps without hud down to 25-40 spiking and stutters)

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I do not think anyone is reporting Ryzen using only one core. It is entirely normal, however, to see one core being used more than the others. 

 

As far as I'm aware, there is nothing wrong with Ryzen. It performs as a processor with its characteristics would be expected to perform.

[BeastyBaiter]

The i7-8700k is up an running and just like the Ryzen 5 1600X, BoS uses 4 cores with 1 core basically maxed, 1 at about half and the other 2 at around 20%.