Is it worth upgrading?

[SAG]

I would like upgrading my PC tu run BoX in VR with all the latest additional eye-candy. 

 

My current specs are on my signature. I was thinking of maybe getting an 7700k or something.

 

What do you guys recommend? I want to get my 90 fps in vr at least most of the time and never dipping below 45 while having all the graphics maxed out (except maybe mirrors and grass) is this possible with current hardware within a somewhat reasonable price?

 

Thanks in advance for any help provided!

[SAG]

Bump? 

Maybe someone with VR and a 8700k ( or similar)could give me his/her opinion. Maybe im asking too much for current tech.

[-332FG-Hank_DG]

You'll be fine where you're at honestly..... i'm running a i5 7500 with a 1060.... looks great. Sure i'm not at 90 fps but average at 70-80 and drop to 45 mostly in Kuban map around the frontline.

[216th_Jordan]

To be honest I'd wait for Intels 10nm to be sold in numbers and DDR5. But thats at least a year you'd have to wait. (for DDR5 possibly even a bit longer)

If you can't max out 90 fps in VR (and thats where you need GPU power) a CPU upgrade will not do too much.

So either upgrade graphics card or wait a little and have better tech for the same price while having a higher performance overhead for future developments.

[BeastyBaiter]

My system's specs are in my sig and even my machine can't hold 90 fps at max detail in VR. However, I never see below 45 fps in either MP or the new career. The limiting factor is the i7-8700k at 5.0 GHz. BoX is heavily single thread dependent and it simply cannot render a pair of frames at 90 Hz consistently at higher detail settings. In an empty mission it can do this on high-ish detail but in a career mission with a ton of stuff going on, it's mostly around 50-70 fps. Ultra detail is out of the question, that's basically 45 fps all the time, though it's worth pointing out that it will never drop below 45 fps at least. There is plenty of headroom left over in that case, just not enough to hit 90 fps for even a tiny fraction of a second.

 

It's also worth mentioning that with 1.7 PD, the 1080 TI rarely exceeds 50% core usage and 3.5GB of VRAM usage . I strongly suspect a GTX 1060 6GB and certainly a GTX 1070 would still be bottlenecked by the i7-8700k at 5.0 GHz in VR. Without a major rewrite of BoX's graphics engine (DX12 or Vulkan), this is unlikely to change. With current CPU architectures (Intel Core series and Ryzen), I suspect we'd need around 6 or 7 GHz to hold 90 fps all the time at max detail. That just isn't happening anytime in the next few years.

[SAG]

1 hour ago, II./JG77_HankDG said:

You'll be fine where you're at honestly..... i'm running a i5 7500 with a 1060.... looks great. Sure i'm not at 90 fps but average at 70-80 and drop to 45 mostly in Kuban map around the frontline.

 

 

well thats sounds a lot better than my perpetual 45-50 fps. what setting do you have your game set to?

1 hour ago, BeastyBaiter said:

My system's specs are in my sig and even my machine can't hold 90 fps at max detail in VR. However, I never see below 45 fps in either MP or the new career. The limiting factor is the i7-8700k at 5.0 GHz. BoX is heavily single thread dependent and it simply cannot render a pair of frames at 90 Hz consistently at higher detail settings. In an empty mission it can do this on high-ish detail but in a career mission with a ton of stuff going on, it's mostly around 50-70 fps. Ultra detail is out of the question, that's basically 45 fps all the time, though it's worth pointing out that it will never drop below 45 fps at least. There is plenty of headroom left over in that case, just not enough to hit 90 fps for even a tiny fraction of a second.

 

It's also worth mentioning that with 1.7 PD, the 1080 TI rarely exceeds 50% core usage and 3.5GB of VRAM usage . I strongly suspect a GTX 1060 6GB and certainly a GTX 1070 would still be bottlenecked by the i7-8700k at 5.0 GHz in VR. Without a major rewrite of BoX's graphics engine (DX12 or Vulkan), this is unlikely to change. With current CPU architectures (Intel Core series and Ryzen), I suspect we'd need around 6 or 7 GHz to hold 90 fps all the time at max detail. That just isn't happening anytime in the next few years.

 

well not going below 45 in any situation is pretty much what im aiming for, so perhaps the upgrade is worth it

[216th_Jordan]

VR has such a huge CPU resource impact o.O I'm intrigued.

[Herne]

must admit, I've been thinking about it recently too. Will wait and see for some ryzen 2 benchmarks next month. 

[SAG]

1 minute ago, 216th_Jordan said:

VR has such a huge CPU resource impact o.O I'm intrigued.

 

and apparently RAM speed impact as well, at least much more noticeable than any other games

[216th_Jordan]

Well then waiting for DDR5 would make a lot of sense.

[BeastyBaiter]

1 hour ago, 19//SAG said:

 

 

well thats sounds a lot better than my perpetual 45-50 fps. what setting do you have your game set to?

 

well not going below 45 in any situation is pretty much what im aiming for, so perhaps the upgrade is worth it

 

 

SteamVR pixel density at 1.7, in game settings in pic at bottom.

 

On a related note, I yanked a GTX 1060 6GB out of my mining rig to prove or disprove my suspicion that even a GTX 1060 would be bottlenecked by an i7-8700k. That suspicion didn't pan out but I wasn't far off either. Dropping the PD down to 1.2 resulted in a balanced system in a quick mission with 8x He-111's, 4x P-39's (with all the guns), ships, trains, tanks, clouds... all over the Novorossiysk area on Kuban. FPS did drop to 42 fps at times, but that's as low as it went. It was mostly at 45 fps though the GTX 1060 6GB was clearly the limiting factor. This is with the HUD on btw.

 

[SAG]

10 hours ago, BeastyBaiter said:

 

 

SteamVR pixel density at 1.7, in game settings in pic at bottom.

 

On a related note, I yanked a GTX 1060 6GB out of my mining rig to prove or disprove my suspicion that even a GTX 1060 would be bottlenecked by an i7-8700k. That suspicion didn't pan out but I wasn't far off either. Dropping the PD down to 1.2 resulted in a balanced system in a quick mission with 8x He-111's, 4x P-39's (with all the guns), ships, trains, tanks, clouds... all over the Novorossiysk area on Kuban. FPS did drop to 42 fps at times, but that's as low as it went. It was mostly at 45 fps though the GTX 1060 6GB was clearly the limiting factor. This is with the HUD on btw.

 

 

thanks a lot for taking the time to test S!

With the HUD on?! those results seem very very nice to me! if you still have the 1060 installed how do you think it would go with those same settings but with a higher distant landscape?

 

any advice on what to mine with a 580 rig at the moment?

Edited March 17, 2018 by 19//SAG

[KoN_]

You have a good system now . VR is still early stages i would wait at least a year before going VR . Loads and loads of threads about poor graphics  in games cant read text ect ect .

[BeastyBaiter]

I wouldn't wait a year, in fact I jumped on last year and haven't regretted it the least bit. I don't think VR is in the early stages at this point, it's fairly well developed imho.

 

Regardless, I haven't tested too much with settings on the GTX 1060. It's now back in the mining rig with my 1080 TI in this machine. The biggest limiting factor on FPS with the 1080 TI is object draw distance, namely trees and buildings. These are what eat all the CPU cycles, causing the system to bottleneck. The 1080 TI itself isn't even remotely stressed. I'm not sure if distant landscape detail alters tree render range, I know the 4 presets do though.

 

As for what to mine, I just stick with nicehash. It's rarely #1 for mining income, but it's almost always in the top 3 which tends to make it #1 on average. Mining is getting pretty rough though, profitability is definitely in the tank. I have to wonder if Bitmain or Baikal have secret ASICs for all the crypto currencies now. Prices haven't changed, and yet mining income is about half what it was a month ago. Somebody is driving up the difficulty across the board and they aren't doing it with GPU's since those are finally in stock again.

[SAG]

6 hours ago, II./JG77_Con said:

You have a good system now . VR is still early stages i would wait at least a year before going VR . Loads and loads of threads about poor graphics  in games cant read text ect ect .

 

I already own VR so im talking about upgrading my machine to get better FPS in VR, but thanks for your input.

 

5 hours ago, BeastyBaiter said:

I wouldn't wait a year, in fact I jumped on last year and haven't regretted it the least bit. I don't think VR is in the early stages at this point, it's fairly well developed imho.

 

Regardless, I haven't tested too much with settings on the GTX 1060. It's now back in the mining rig with my 1080 TI in this machine. The biggest limiting factor on FPS with the 1080 TI is object draw distance, namely trees and buildings. These are what eat all the CPU cycles, causing the system to bottleneck. The 1080 TI itself isn't even remotely stressed. I'm not sure if distant landscape detail alters tree render range, I know the 4 presets do though.

 

As for what to mine, I just stick with nicehash. It's rarely #1 for mining income, but it's almost always in the top 3 which tends to make it #1 on average. Mining is getting pretty rough though, profitability is definitely in the tank. I have to wonder if Bitmain or Baikal have secret ASICs for all the crypto currencies now. Prices haven't changed, and yet mining income is about half what it was a month ago. Somebody is driving up the difficulty across the board and they aren't doing it with GPU's since those are finally in stock again.

 

this is very interesting to me, what setting affects draw distance in the graphics menu? is it the pre-sets?

[BeastyBaiter]

It used to be presets mainly (actually entirely) but there are so many new settings since I tinkered around with the options that I can't say for sure now. I tinkered with shadow quality and the two terrain distance options yesterday but wasn't able to nail anything down with certainty.

[SAG]

8 hours ago, BeastyBaiter said:

It used to be presets mainly (actually entirely) but there are so many new settings since I tinkered around with the options that I can't say for sure now. I tinkered with shadow quality and the two terrain distance options yesterday but wasn't able to nail anything down with certainty.

 

Thanks for the help, i will try recording sounds in english so that i can turn the hud off in VR for the career mode , that should give me an fps boost. apparently someone has already done it but in greek here: 

 

 

[KoN_]

On 17/03/2018 at 6:55 PM, 19//SAG said:

 

I already own VR so im talking about upgrading my machine to get better FPS in VR, but thanks for your input.

 

 

this is very interesting to me, what setting affects draw distance in the graphics menu? is it the pre-sets?

You could overclock that cpu to 4.5 . 

[SAG]

6 hours ago, II./JG77_Con said:

You could overclock that cpu to 4.5 . 

 

I can't go over 4.0 without stability issues, i've already tried

 

perhaps ill get a better cooler first and then try again (one that is compatible with my current rig and a 8700k's socket for when i upgrade) thanks for the idea!

Edited March 19, 2018 by 19//SAG

[KoN_]

Oh yes your need a good cooler . Artic freeze ate good .

[III/JG2Gustav05]

I wonder how much benefit you can get from this 4.5G overclock？

[BeastyBaiter]

A lot. 4.0 GHz to 4.7 GHz represented roughly a 90% increase in average FPS prior to the most recent update in VR (our test track is now broken). I don't know off the top of my head where 4.5 GHz would land you, but it isn't insignificant.

[216th_Jordan]

1 hour ago, III/JG2Gustav05 said:

I wonder how much benefit you can get from this 4.5G overclock？

 

Well in theory about a 12% increase in CPU performance. But thats best theoretically possible scenario. If your CPU is the bottleneck you'll very likely notice the difference. Sometimes my system switches back to 3.7 Ghz from 4.6 after an irregular shutdown and the performance degradation is really noticable even without checking actual fps.

 

But again, individual application performance depends on a lot if things and can be even more than those 12% if the problem is amplified by a bottleneck.

Edited March 20, 2018 by 216th_Jordan

[ironk79]

On 17.3.2018 at 7:55 PM, 19//SAG said:

 

I already own VR so im talking about upgrading my machine to get better FPS in VR, but thanks for your input.

 

 

this is very interesting to me, what setting affects draw distance in the graphics menu? is it the pre-sets?

def. in the presets, thatswhy i play at high setting, the "balanced" draw distance of trees is to low for my taste. i could never figure out what the "distant landscape" setting changes. at least in VR i couldnt see a difference.