Jump to content
feathers632

Ryzen versus 8700k IL2 and VR

Recommended Posts

HTC Vive

Ryzen 1700 @ 3.8ghz.  16gb @ 3466mhz.

GTX 1070 +140 core +500mhz Vram overclock.

 

^^ So that is my current setup.  My first ever AMD system... had only ever built Intel systems since the days of 486DX.  I chose the Ryzen for 3d rendering and value for money...  However... All my 3d rendering is now done on GPU!!!!  My old i5 2500k CPU was clocked at 4.8ghz.  It's very very hard for me psychologically to live with 3.8ghz Ryzen overclock.  My 16gb ram is rated at 4ghz and will overclock to 4.5ghz on an Intel system.  It's limited to 3466mhz on my AMD system.  Ryzen+ is coming but we can expect about 3.3ghz when overclocked so that's still far short of 8700k.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/31094-help-need-best-vr-settings-hi-end-rig-help/?p=508437

 

"Your i7 7700K should run with at least 4.6GHz during IL-2 VR gameplay."

I am so close to ditching my Ryzen and selling the CPU, motherboard and waterblock but I need to know if the performance gain is worth it?

 

I run VR and only VR.  All games and flight sims are run in VR.  VR needs every bit of FPS....

 

What are your thoughts on this?

Edited by feathers632

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a Ryzen 5 1600x (well, still have but in a mining rig) + GTX 1080 TI and ended up switching a few months back to the 8700k. For non-VR, the 1600x was great in gaming but VR in both BoX and DCS are extremely single thread dependent. The 8700k, despite being an inferior CPU in some workloads (e.g. mining), does offer substantially better single thread performance in every game I've played that cares about single thread performance (2 games currently, DCS and BoX, everything else moved on years ago).

 

It seems the Balapan benchmarks have all been deleted, but according to my old post from last summer, the 1600x at 4.0 GHz + 16GB DDR4 @ 2667 MHz and a GTX 1080 TI yielded 45 fps average, 44 fps minimum and maybe 47 fps max in VR and around 130 fps average at 1080p. The exact same system with a new mobo + 8700k (specs in signature) gives around 88-89 fps average at the same settings in the test track. In general play, I rarely see below 90 fps.

 

The situation is similar in DCS. The 1600X gave a locked 45 fps over NTTR regardless of detail settings with the 1080 TI. The 8700k will usually muster 90 fps away from major cities but still drops to 45 fps over towns. This is at high-ish detail with a PD of 1.3 (anything higher and the 1080 TI chokes). The new Caucuses map isn't an issue either, mostly 90 fps when a few km up and 45 fps while in the weeds near towns and forests.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a Ryzen 5 1600x (well, still have but in a mining rig) + GTX 1080 TI and ended up switching a few months back to the 8700k. For non-VR, the 1600x was great in gaming but VR in both BoX and DCS are extremely single thread dependent. The 8700k, despite being an inferior CPU in some workloads (e.g. mining), does offer substantially better single thread performance in every game I've played that cares about single thread performance (2 games currently, DCS and BoX, everything else moved on years ago).

 

It seems the Balapan benchmarks have all been deleted, but according to my old post from last summer, the 1600x at 4.0 GHz + 16GB DDR4 @ 2667 MHz and a GTX 1080 TI yielded 45 fps average, 44 fps minimum and maybe 47 fps max in VR and around 130 fps average at 1080p. The exact same system with a new mobo + 8700k (specs in signature) gives around 88-89 fps average at the same settings in the test track. In general play, I rarely see below 90 fps.

 

The situation is similar in DCS. The 1600X gave a locked 45 fps over NTTR regardless of detail settings with the 1080 TI. The 8700k will usually muster 90 fps away from major cities but still drops to 45 fps over towns. This is at high-ish detail with a PD of 1.3 (anything higher and the 1080 TI chokes). The new Caucuses map isn't an issue either, mostly 90 fps when a few km up and 45 fps while in the weeds near towns and forests.

 

I have a similar setup and altough it's far from perfect, I still get the constant 45 fps asw, with very high quality options, with the ocasional lag/artifact.

So far i'm able to enjoy it quite a bit. but maybe for bodenplatte I might upgrade it all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 8700k, despite being an inferior CPU in some workloads (e.g. mining), does offer substantially better single thread performance in every game I've played that cares about single thread performance

 

 

This is absolutely vital. For games such as Il-2, DCS, and ARMA 3, the difference between Ryzen and i7-7700K/8700K (or even an i3 or i5 at similar clocks) is astounding. I dare say the experience in some of these games is severely compromised on Ryzen (even without the added stress of VR). 

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah best results I have seen to date for VR are with the 7700k/8700k.

 

So tempted to go ahead and do my new build sooner rather than later ( originally planned for latter part of the year, like around Nov.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost bought a Ryzen set-up then I read the threads. If you`re on a budget you could do what I did ( be a crash test dummy for the 8350k) buy the 8350k and clock it to 4.9+ at around 1.3v. In game wearing the Rift with 8 v 8 fighter on fighter situations it sits at 90fps even low and dense combat doesn`t diminish that below 70. Decent Asus board, RAM and cpu were around £400 but maybe you don`t need the RAM?. As I was told and has been proven by playing IL2 BoX needs no more than 8gb of RAM. 

Edited by BFsSmurfy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definitely get new ram if I were to do a build as I would want DDR4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an overclocked Ryzen 7 at 3.8, 1080 and 16b RAM @ 3200.

I also do 3D work. Last system was i5 2500k

 

I'm not going back to Intel - Ryzen is just too good.

BoS is multithreaded and even in heavy missions my CPU load never goes above 18%.

 

Don't make the mistake of comparing clock speeds between architectures - that's just dumb.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going back to Intel - Ryzen is just too good.

BoS is multithreaded and even in heavy missions my CPU load never goes above 18%.

 

This is completely false, as shown by the following test: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/32318-review-i7-8700k-vs-r5-1600x-bos/. The i7-8700K beats Ryzen by a very large margin.

 

BoS still heavily depends on that single-thread performance. While it does use more than one thread, the extra cores of Ryzen do not help. CPU load is not a meaningful measure of performance. 

 

 

 

Don't make the mistake of comparing clock speeds between architectures - that's just dumb.

Intel not only has significantly faster clock speeds, but also higher instructions per clock and lower memory latency.  

 

Ryzen is good for some workloads, but it struggles in Il-2 and DCS (especially in VR). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done my own testing

Other workloads on my end also bolster my preference for Ryzen :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's also not the same Ryzen chip.

In 2020 I'll also be able to throw in the latest and greatest chip - try that with Intel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I stated above, Ryzen is not slower, it's just different. That difference unfortunately means that BoS and DCS don't run as well on Ryzen as they do on current Intel chips. However, there are other tasks where a Ryzen chip smokes everything Intel has on offer. Prime example: my mining rig with the 1600x runs the Cryptonight algorithm at 388 H/S with out of the box settings (3.7GHz all core boost) on a mere 50W of power. My i7-8700k runs 299 H/S with an all core overclock of 4.7GHz. And despite being under volted, it still pulls over 60W. That's 20% more power for 22% less performance compared to the Ryzen 5 1600x, and that inferior performance comes at a $300 price premium for the CPU + mobo + cooler.

 

But mining performance is OT, for BoS and DCS, I have to recommend Coffee Lake for now. It isn't the fault of AMD, they make superb CPU's currently. Unfortunately, BoS and DCS don't take advantage of them and so we're left with Intel for now. Of course, they don't properly utilize Intel CPU's either, but they make better use of them than they do Ryzen.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done my own testing

Other workloads on my end also bolster my preference for Ryzen :)

 

I'm in the same boat as you. 

 

Might not be the top performer for VR... but for being able to do VR well, game on monitor well, and photo/video editing (last two at the same time while browsing the internet, no less), Ryzen is for me, the absolute winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully we'll see some code optimization in BoS - both CPU's will benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is completely false, as shown by the following test: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/32318-review-i7-8700k-vs-r5-1600x-bos/. The i7-8700K beats Ryzen by a very large margin.

 

BoS still heavily depends on that single-thread performance. While it does use more than one thread, the extra cores of Ryzen do not help. CPU load is not a meaningful measure of performance. 

 

 

 

Intel not only has significantly faster clock speeds, but also higher instructions per clock and lower memory latency.  

 

Ryzen is good for some workloads, but it struggles in Il-2 and DCS (especially in VR). 

That CPU comparison makes no sense. There is a huge price difference.

 

Better comparison would be between Ryzen 5 1600(X) and Intel Core i5-8400. Those CPUs have similar prices.

 

While i5-8700K has 6 cores/12 threads and a base clock rate of 3.7GHz (4.7GHz Turbo for one core) and is also overclock-able, i5-8400 has 6 cores/6 threads and a much lower frequency: 2.8GHz (4.0GHz Turbo for one core).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently, Intel beats Ryzen in VR big time. It's not even close, it's a countrysize landslide.

 

If you ask the question "what to get for IL-2", there is only one correct answer.

 

Ryzen has its uses for other things, but it's not "VR ready". It applies to many other games beside IL-2 and DCS. It's true that it's the games' architectures faults, but it doesn't change the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently, Intel beats Ryzen in VR big time. It's not even close, it's a countrysize landslide.

 

If you ask the question "what to get for IL-2", there is only one correct answer.

.

If that's correct at all it applies only to VR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone with both a Ryzen 1600x and an i7-8700k, I can say it is a VR only issue and only limited to 2 games I've played (DCS and BoX). Robo Recall on Ryzen? Runs great. Elite Dangerous? Flawless (other than being a terrible game). Dead Effect 2 VR? 90 fps locked at max detail.

 

In regards to the post from months ago I made about the Ryzen 5 vs i7, yeah, it's completely unfair. I pointed that out at the very beginning of it. But it is valid for showing how the two architectures behave in BoX. BoX doesn't use 6 threads, nevermind 12. So as far as BoX is concerned, a 4 core 4 thread Ryzen 3 1200 overclocked to 4.0 GHz =  a 16 core 32 thread Threadripper 1950X at 4.0 GHz. It also means an i3-8350k = i7-8700k at the same clock. This is ignoring the existence of background tasks of course, which do result in the higher core counts being a bit better in real world usage.

 

If you want VR in BoX and DCS and any hope of a consistent 90 fps, you need a 4.7GHz+ modern CPU. Since Ryzen can't hit that clock speed without resorting to liquid nitrogen, that just leaves something Intel. For other VR games, there isn't any problem with the lower clocks. Additionally, a locked Intel chip at lower clocks struggles just as much. My old i5-4690 (non-k) was absolute garbage compared to the Ryzen 5 1600x in BoX despite having similar clocks. Outside of VR, Ryzen runs great in BoX. No, you won't see 180 fps with it like you will with an 8700k. But will see 120-130 fps pretty much all the time with an appropriate GPU.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most games don't require as much of the cpu as il2 does. And I really do appreciate Amd putting pressure on intel, as everyone else.

But that the ryzen runs great with those other games, is this really a valid argument? I mean, you could say the same about an older intel - runs great, no need for 200fps. So unless doing heavy calculations at home why upgrade from an older generation intel? 

 

I don't play much other than il2 so this is a question: roughly what percentage of todays pc games properly make use of +4 cores? Last I heard it was only the bigger productions like battlefield? While for us sim boys playing il2, dcs, arma and all that, it was old school single thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Ryzen 1700 (oc 3.85ghz) owner, I'm having that problem too. :(

All I can do is 16 plane high altitude quick dogfight missions in small maps. Almost everything on low, I'm a bit GPU limited too with a RX 480. :) That runs at 90 fps with no problem and is quite fun. :)

 

If I'm not mistaken, Han once said they would achieve multi threaded physics some day. Well, I'm waiting for that day. I won't be changing cpus every year. I bought Ryzen to support competition just as I'm buying every collector plane even ones I'm sure I won't be flying just to support the dev team in their work. I just hope having multi cores will pay off some day because I think it's the only way we'll be able to enjoy large scale air battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone with both a Ryzen 1600x and an i7-8700k, I can say it is a VR only issue and only limited to 2 games I've played (DCS and BoX). Robo Recall on Ryzen? Runs great. Elite Dangerous? Flawless (other than being a terrible game). Dead Effect 2 VR? 90 fps locked at max detail.

 

In regards to the post from months ago I made about the Ryzen 5 vs i7, yeah, it's completely unfair. I pointed that out at the very beginning of it. But it is valid for showing how the two architectures behave in BoX. BoX doesn't use 6 threads, nevermind 12. So as far as BoX is concerned, a 4 core 4 thread Ryzen 3 1200 overclocked to 4.0 GHz =  a 16 core 32 thread Threadripper 1950X at 4.0 GHz. It also means an i3-8350k = i7-8700k at the same clock. This is ignoring the existence of background tasks of course, which do result in the higher core counts being a bit better in real world usage.

 

If you want VR in BoX and DCS and any hope of a consistent 90 fps, you need a 4.7GHz+ modern CPU. Since Ryzen can't hit that clock speed without resorting to liquid nitrogen, that just leaves something Intel. For other VR games, there isn't any problem with the lower clocks. Additionally, a locked Intel chip at lower clocks struggles just as much. My old i5-4690 (non-k) was absolute garbage compared to the Ryzen 5 1600x in BoX despite having similar clocks. Outside of VR, Ryzen runs great in BoX. No, you won't see 180 fps with it like you will with an 8700k. But will see 120-130 fps pretty much all the time with an appropriate GPU.

Yup, that is a very accurate picture.  DCS World, BoX and now X-Plane need high clocks.  BoX runs better for me than DCS especially when I turn off the on-screen info ("H").  If I ditched Ryzen for Intel it would be pretty much just for these flight sims.

 

I am still unsure whether to wait for Ryzen+ or just ditch it and run back to intel begging forgiveness.  I like the Ryzen but I find it very hard living with 3.8ghz clock speed.  My old Q6600 was at 3.8 and my i5 2500k at 4.8.  Slight drop in price for 8700k now and I'd get a reasonable sell price on my AMD bits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Ryzen 1700 (oc 3.85ghz) owner, I'm having that problem too. :(

All I can do is 16 plane high altitude quick dogfight missions in small maps. Almost everything on low, I'm a bit GPU limited too with a RX 480. :) That runs at 90 fps with no problem and is quite fun. :)

 

If I'm not mistaken, Han once said they would achieve multi threaded physics some day. Well, I'm waiting for that day. I won't be changing cpus every year. I bought Ryzen to support competition just as I'm buying every collector plane even ones I'm sure I won't be flying just to support the dev team in their work. I just hope having multi cores will pay off some day because I think it's the only way we'll be able to enjoy large scale air battles.

Problem is the time we have to wait for the various flight sims to get major performance updates.  DCS 2.5 runs a bit better but I've heard it still uses a single core for calculations.  I was warned over at DCS forum that even if I go 8700k that won't stop it dropping to 45 or lower even with a 1080ti.  We're buying much more expensive hardware to compensate for badly performing code.  DX11 is crap.  I'd like to see these sims running Vulkan or DX12 with VRworks features.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, Ryzen 2 is coming! Hope it will bring single thread clocks to be on par with intel! and if it does, I'm upgrading!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a surprise, most reasonable predictions were for 4.3-4.4GHz as max overclock with same # of cores. Regardless, my simple recommendation for VR in BoX/DCS is either an i5-8600k or the i7-8700k. Those are the only two CPU's currently on the market that have any real hope of consistently hitting 90 fps in either game. A case can be made for 7700k, but I really can't recommend it due to poor value. I do not recommend the i3-8350k due to its low core count (4 cores). DCS and BoS don't make use of the extra cores on the 6+ core CPU's, but steamVR is a CPU hog. You definitely want that on a different physical core than what the game uses.

 

Edit: a_radek, BoX and DCS actually use very little CPU compared to most modern games. The biggest CPU hog is the graphics engine. Flight modeling maybe extremely complicated to program, but it requires bugger all for the CPU to calculate. What brings a CPU to its knees is the 15,000 draw calls for trees/bushes/houses. The most CPU intensive game I know of is Doom 2016. Admittedly that's at 200 fps locked, but still.

Edited by BeastyBaiter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not going back to Intel - Ryzen is just too good. BoS is multithreaded and even in heavy missions my CPU load never goes above 18%

 

Nobody wanted more than me that the Ryzen would be good for IL-2 VR, so there would be an alternative to Intel. But no, in IL-2 VR the Ryzen is non-go.

 

Of course, IL-2 runs more than one thread, but there is one thread which is the heavy one and it bottlenecks quickly the core where it is running. That´s why single-thread performance is important for IL-2 (specially in VR).

 

Don´t get confused by the reported CPU load below 18%. There way it is calculated is a bit fake for mostly single-thread applications like IL-2. We discussed about this exactly here:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29322-measuring-rig-performance-common-baseline/?p=499726

 

The Ryzen is a beast in 3D multithread applications like video editing and compresion. For IL-2 in FullHD monitor is also more than enough as shown in the test page.


 

 

I've done my own testing

 

What testing were you doing with Ryzen vs. Intel?  It was for IL-2 or it was for other 3D applications you work on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a surprise, most reasonable predictions were for 4.3-4.4GHz as max overclock with same # of cores. Regardless, my simple recommendation for VR in BoX/DCS is either an i5-8600k or the i7-8700k. Those are the only two CPU's currently on the market that have any real hope of consistently hitting 90 fps in either game. A case can be made for 7700k, but I really can't recommend it due to poor value. I do not recommend the i3-8350k due to its low core count (4 cores). DCS and BoS don't make use of the extra cores on the 6+ core CPU's, but steamVR is a CPU hog. You definitely want that on a different physical core than what the game uses.

 

Edit: a_radek, BoX and DCS actually use very little CPU compared to most modern games. The biggest CPU hog is the graphics engine. Flight modeling maybe extremely complicated to program, but it requires bugger all for the CPU to calculate. What brings a CPU to its knees is the 15,000 draw calls for trees/bushes/houses. The most CPU intensive game I know of is Doom 2016. Admittedly that's at 200 fps locked, but still.

 

Interesting...  From what you say about trees and buildings/scenery being the biggest CPU killer... Vulkan could potentially improve things with the higher rate of draw-calls. I guess I will have to ditch the Piezen and run back to Intel just for the flight sims.  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hopefully we'll see some code optimization in BoS - both CPU's will benefit

 

I also would like to see that, but re-coding IL-2 for being fully multithread could be a big task. There were just a vague mention about by Han almost 3 years ago:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/?p=287832

 

He said: May be one day. Multicore is allready here, but we need to split not just graphics-physics-sound-network like now, but physics (game world) inside itself. It's not so easy

 

With all the new Bodenplate, Flying circus, tanks on the table right now, I doubt they will dedicate one single minute to even think about it.

And the only affected users are the VR people who have a low single-thread performance. 

As Smurfy was commenting above, the i3-8350K is also a top performer, so no need to spend a fortune for the upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Slight drop in price for 8700k now and I'd get a reasonable sell price on my AMD bits.

 

If you are not going to use the CPU for other heavy multithread applications, you don´t need to go to the 8700K. The i3-8350K will cost you 200$ less and will give you very similar results in VR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I do not recommend the i3-8350k due to its low core count (4 cores). DCS and BoS don't make use of the extra cores on the 6+ core CPU's, but steamVR is a CPU hog. You definitely want that on a different physical core than what the game uses.

 

According to devs, the game only uses two cores:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/?p=45701

 

Also, the recent tests peformed by Smurfy confirms that i3-8350K is also a very valid CPU. Since you still have two extra cores for OS and SteamVR.

Could you re-run the Balapan test again at 4.9 OC and RAM at 3000MHz and after the Microsoft Windows Intel patch? (just to compare it to Smurfy test at 4.9, look at the tab Main2018) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are not going to use the CPU for other heavy multithread applications, you don´t need to go to the 8700K. The i3-8350K will cost you 200$ less and will give you very similar results in VR. 

 

Some of that decision making process could depend on certain factors. Money, what one wants to get out of it, games they play, etc.

 

Take me for instance, I will be doing a new build certainly this year, remains to be seen if I go ahead with it here soon or if I decide to wait a few months. If I were to decide to go ahead with it, I would go for the 8700k hands down.

Now I typically will hold on to a build for around 5 years time, upgrading typically just the GPU during that cycle.

Well who knows how our combat flight sims and other games might handle things CPU wise in a 5 year span. A couple of years ago, I only did flight sims. Now though I delve into other VR games as well.

And of course not to mention, future VR devices and the hardware to push them.

 

But that is just me, when I do a new one I try and get the most I can keeping in mind how long I will hold on to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see the effects of increasing core counts in the next few years. 

 

The writing is on the wall for the old game tech.

 

I suspect that choosing a CPU will be similar to choosing a graphics card; you'll look at the core count first. 

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also would like to see that, but re-coding IL-2 for being fully multithread could be a big task. There were just a vague mention about by Han almost 3 years ago:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/?p=287832

 

He said: May be one day. Multicore is allready here, but we need to split not just graphics-physics-sound-network like now, but physics (game world) inside itself. It's not so easy

 

With all the new Bodenplate, Flying circus, tanks on the table right now, I doubt they will dedicate one single minute to even think about it.

And the only affected users are the VR people who have a low single-thread performance. 

As Smurfy was commenting above, the i3-8350K is also a top performer, so no need to spend a fortune for the upgrade.

WTF...core i3 8350K is obviously terrible CPU to buy or recommended,for the same price you can have much better 6 core i5 8400 with 3,8ghz boost for all cores ,which is more than enough even for VR in il 2 BOS and extra 2 cores are very important ,its 2018 after all ,6 cores on 3.8ghz are much better than 4 cores on 4.8ghz ,maybe not so much for il2 bos ,but for everything else including modern games 4 core CPUs are not optimal any more.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the i5-8400 is it doesn't have the clock speeds needed for VR in BoX/DCS. There isn't a single CPU on the market that can run those two at 90 fps out of the box at anything above minimum detail (or close to it). You absolutely have to overclock them to get good performance with the dated graphics engines we are stuck with. For the same reason, I also cannot recommend the i7-8700. If it isn't an intel k model able to hit 4.7 GHz, don't waste your money. You will be stuck at 45 fps or less regardless of if you get a $60 Pentium, a $100 Ryzen 3 or an i7-8700 (non-k). Now in terms of total processing power, the i5-8400 is a pretty good deal. I can definately recommend it, just as I can recommend the very comparable Ryzen 5 1600. But neither is suited to VR in BoX/DCS due to game engine limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The problem with the i5-8400 is it doesn't have the clock speeds needed for VR in BoX/DCS.

Absolutely. 

 

 

its 2018 after all ,6 cores on 3.8ghz are much better than 4 cores on 4.8ghz
 

You can't just multiply core count by clock speed to determine CPU performance. This misconception is all too common. 

 

To choose a CPU the correct way, do the following:

  1. Check the number of cores that your application is able to utilize (4 in the case of Il-2)
  2. Find CPUs with at least this many cores that score well on single-thread benchmarks
  3. Look at reviews to find typical overclocking headroom (% OC is approximately equal to % performance above nominal)
  4. Investigate optimal memory configuration (rapidly diminishing returns, often no benefit in price/performance ratio)

With this procedure, it is possible to find the best CPU for any application. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. 

 

 

 

You can't just multiply core count by clock speed to determine CPU performance. This misconception is all too common. 

 

To choose a CPU the correct way, do the following:

  1. Check the number of cores that your application is able to utilize (4 in the case of Il-2)
  2. Find CPUs with at least this many cores that score well on single-thread benchmarks
  3. Look at reviews to find typical overclocking headroom (% OC is approximately equal to % performance above nominal)
  4. Investigate optimal memory configuration (rapidly diminishing returns, often no benefit in price/performance ratio)

With this procedure, it is possible to find the best CPU for any application. 

I dont multiply anything ,nobody with brain should buy 4 core i3 over 6 core i5 in 2018 if both CPUs cost the same...4 cores just start hitting the wall in games and i am sure nobody play only Il2 BOS...Il2 mainly uses 2 cores but in DCS 2.5 all 4 cores on my i5 4690k hitting 100% most of the time,with nothing left on the table.

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

×
×
  • Create New...