IL first impression & 3 question marks...

[Gambit21]

Ryzen 1700, overclocked does fantastic with BoX

I’m not a VR guy though.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Gambit21

[-332FG-Gordon200]

I have no complaints from my Ryzen 5-1600x OC @ 4.0Mhz , 32Gb DDR4, GTX 1070 8Gb and Oculus Rift.

Only draw back I have are my eyes aren't as young as they once were. My distant vision is poor but not so bad as to require lenses.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

4 hours ago, BiBa said:

Planning soon for the following upgrade:

AMD X399 MoBo 

M.2 SSD 1TB Drive 

16 cores 4.0GHz AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X CPU 

GTX1080Ti GPU 

4 X 16GB PC-3200 DDR4-RAM

 

I guess that will do it

 

Stay away from AMD CPUs if VR performance is important to you. The benchmarks make this very clear.

 

The sixteen cores are completely irrelevant if the game only benefits from four. 

 

Look for Intel CPUs that will reach the highest overclocks. Right now, that’s the i7-8700K (or 8086).

 

Also, 32 GB of RAM is completely unnecessary for Il-2 (it won’t hurt if the price isn’t a problem).

Edited August 8, 2018 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[BiBa]

13 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Stay away from AMD CPUs if VR performance is important to you. The benchmarks make this very clear.

The sixteen cores are completely irrelevant if the game only benefits from four. 

Look for Intel CPUs that will reach the highest overclocks. Right now, that’s the i7-8700K (or 8086).

Also, 32 GB of RAM is completely unnecessary for Il-2 (it won’t hurt if the price isn’t a problem).

 

 

It depends how the Game/Sim engine deals with threads. If the IL engine benefits only from a limited core amount, then that is a different story. FSX had also a limited core benefit. 

 

On the other hand, I do have other priorities Sims where its engine involves all CPU multi-cores and takes a big advantage of hyperthreading. Therefore I'll surely NOT make my PC Specs decision purchase based on one single Game. Sorry about that. 

 

For a better comparison between Intel Core i7-8086K vs. AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X:

https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i7_8086k-883-vs-amd_ryzen_threadripper_1950x-756

 

I am a Simmer at first, not a Gamer. The physics of the AI in IL-2 are realistic. (what Gamers prefer to call "Hardcore") The only missing part that would boost it to a Simulation level is an interactive Cockpit. To my own 3D Max knowledge, the main job in IL for that is already done. The AI-physics' Algorithms & Parameters are already up to 80% accomplished. All cockpit Instruments & gauges are already modeled. To my own 3D experience, it doesn't take much to activate/map those 3D objects surface and link them to the already existing Parameters to get the job done... This is only my personal opinion without a challenge to a new debate...

Gamers are revolving facts
Simmers are evolving facts

And the relationship between the two is:
One is the sadist, the other is the masochist...
(Written by me...)

Edited August 9, 2018 by BiBa

[LukeFF]

15 minutes ago, BiBa said:

On the other hand, I do have other priorities Sims where its engine involves all CPU multi-cores and takes a big advantage of hyperthreading. Therefore I'll surely NOT make my PC Specs decision purchase based on one single Game. Sorry about that. 

 

Well then...

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uXBkq7U2MmcEwvNLkB2MkKNLkcAMl0em5Arq4Zn68bA/edit

 

Quote

 

Q: Are there any plans or already undergoing efforts to make game engine utilize more than single core / thread ? Basically I'm asking whether we can expect in this development cycle (BoBP) or perhaps next optimizations of game code to utilize to a full extent modern multi core CPU's ?

 

A: The engine already uses multiple cores. This fallacy that keeps getting repeated annoys me to no end. Further work to support every single core or additional threads takes more work. See previous comments about needing more programmers. I always want to make our engine perform at it’s best and it already does a great job handling so many detailed areas that we model.  

 

 

[BiBa]

19 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Well then...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uXBkq7U2MmcEwvNLkB2MkKNLkcAMl0em5Arq4Zn68bA/edit

 

Q: Are there any plans or already undergoing efforts to make game engine utilize more than single core / thread ? Basically I'm asking whether we can expect in this development cycle (BoBP) or perhaps next optimizations of game code to utilize to a full extent modern multi core CPU's ?

 

A: The engine already uses multiple cores. This fallacy that keeps getting repeated annoys me to no end. Further work to support every single core or additional threads takes more work. See previous comments about needing more programmers. I always want to make our engine perform at it’s best and it already does a great job handling so many detailed areas that we model.  

6

 

 

Thank you Luke for this valuable information. I like constructive replies. I'll surely have a deeper look in it.

 

As a newbie here, I did not know anything about threading in IL! It was Mitthrawnuruodo who gave me the wrong Info on IL's thread limitation. My response was based on HIS false allegation. So your corrective reply on thread limitation should have been addressed to him in the first place. 

 

Next time I'll check the Info from the source first. 

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by BiBa

[BiBa]

12 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Stay away from AMD CPUs if VR performance is important to you. The benchmarks make this very clear.

The sixteen cores are completely irrelevant if the game only benefits from four. 

Look for Intel CPUs that will reach the highest overclocks. Right now, that’s the i7-8700K (or 8086).

Also, 32 GB of RAM is completely unnecessary for Il-2 (it won’t hurt if the price isn’t a problem).

 

 

Referring to LukeFF response, your Info on IL Thread-Limitation was wrong. From your profile, I read you're long enough on this Forum to check your IL-Info first before making that negligent charge of yours on IL engine. A false allegation can cause sometimes an avalanche that can unintentionally entrain other participants... 

 

[SAS_Storebror]

No matter how much Jason keeps being annoyed, the truth stays the same.

Yes, IL-2 runs multiple threads.

Problem is: Only one of them is the CPU hog.

Analyzed here, easy to reproduce for each and everyone on his own:

 

Mike

[BiBa]

17 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

No matter how much Jason keeps being annoyed, the truth stays the same.

Yes, IL-2 runs multiple threads.

Problem is: Only one of them is the CPU hog.

Analyzed here, easy to reproduce for each and everyone on his own:

Mike

 

 

OOOPs... Now maybe as a newbie, it is advisable for me to stay out of discussions on topics, which were brewing for quite a while before causing further any collateral damage...

[Herne]

Biba, I think any pre DX12 game is super hard to optimise for multiple cores. I don't understand the reasons why, but I read somewhere that DX12 makes it much easier.

 

I'm also in the market for a new CPU, and associated MB and RAM, but as my primary consideration is VR performance in Flight Sims, particularly this one. I'm going to go with whatever can give me the best single thread performance. I'm just waiting now for Intel to spill the beans on their latest offerings which we should be hearing about very soon.

[Dakpilot]

As far as VR/graphics and CPUs the use of DX11 is a serious reason that single thread performance is so important. 

 

As far as I know currently or for the foreseeable future no flight sims use DX12 or Vulkan graphics API, so it is what it is. 

 

See the VR benchmark/performance threads in VR section where it is very much shown the benefits of high performance single thread. 

It is of course possible to use AMD multi core CPU but the results will never be as good as Intel while DX11 relies on single thread for a lot of info to be fed to graphics card, regardless of how well the game uses multithreading. 

As BoX has only recently been updated to DX11 any future update will likely not be soon, and there are also many debatable reasons to currently stay with DX11 regarding hardware/playerbase etc. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

1 hour ago, Dakpilot said:

As BoX has only recently been updated to DX11

Well, I'd not say that over 1.5 year ago is something to be considered recently as Dx 11 conversion was completed by update 2.006 released in December 2016. 

 

 

[SAS_Storebror]

Just for reference:

I'm not saying that the Client (Il-2.exe) doesn't make use of multiple cores.

I simply haven't tested this yet.

All I'm saying is that DServer.exe cannot make use of more than one core to any significant amount.

 

General consensus in terms of multi core CPUs seems to have been that DX11 adds reasonable support for up to 4 cores and DX12 goes somewhat beyond that, with an improved resource allocation among threads with heavy CPU usage.

Now if the Client can make good use of 4 cores with DX11, then I don't think that it's worth the effort to take the step to DX12 (yet), especially taking the limited development resources of the Team into account.

 

On the dedicated server the issues are completely different. Here we're not fighting any DX11 vs DX12 battle, this is much more a matter of sheer concurrency within a native application (whichever framework there is behind it).

 

Mike

[Dakpilot]

1 hour ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Well, I'd not say that over 1.5 year ago is something to be considered recently as Dx 11 conversion was completed by update 2.006 released in December 2016. 

 

 

 

Whatever?if you feel that is a misleading statement fine

 

I would say that in terms of DX game engine updates it is not unreasonable to say it was fairly recent, compared to the time the game engine was using DX9 and that taking all things into consideration it is unlikely to get another engine overhaul to DX12 or similar in the nearest future. 

 

I would be happy to be proved wrong and find the game engine upgraded to DX12 with BoBP release. But there has not been even a hint of this possibility, Notwithstanding the difficulties potential for people who do not have Win 10 or DX12 compatible hardware currently 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, Dakpilot said:

 

I would be happy to be proved wrong and find the game engine upgraded to DX12 with BoBP release. But there has not been even a hint of this possibility, Notwithstanding the difficulties potential for people who do not have Win 10 or DX12 compatible hardware currently 

 

DX12 ? What would be the benefit for developer and user? Even big budget Triple A games like DICEs Battlefront 2 doesn´t show any benefit from activating DX12.

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/star-wars-battlefront-ii-performance-benchmarks,5366-6.html

 

I think it would be a waste of resources for 1CGS to even start thinking about DX12.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

6 hours ago, BiBa said:

As a newbie here, I did not know anything about threading in IL! It was Mitthrawnuruodo who gave me the wrong Info on IL's thread limitation. My response was based on HIS false allegation. So your corrective reply on thread limitation should have been addressed to him in the first place.  

Look at the benchmarks before accusing me of "false allegations". They clearly show that i5 or i7 CPUs with at least four cores achieve the highest performance in Il-2 VR, roughly proportional to their single-thread performance. Also note that I never claimed that Il-2 doesn't use multiple cores.

 

5 hours ago, BiBa said:

Referring to LukeFF response, your Info on IL Thread-Limitation was wrong. From your profile, I read you're long enough on this Forum to check your IL-Info first before making that negligent charge of yours on IL engine. A false allegation can cause sometimes an avalanche that can unintentionally entrain other participants... 

Negligence? LOL. The limitation is not even controversial.

 

 

[BiBa]

46 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Look at the benchmarks before accusing me of "false allegations". They clearly show that i5 or i7 CPUs with at least four cores achieve the highest performance in Il-2 VR, roughly proportional to their single-thread performance. Also note that I never claimed that Il-2 doesn't use multiple cores.

 

Negligence? LOL. The limitation is not even controversial.

 

 

 

It was a little bit late for me after having read Luke's (IL Tester) & SAS' comments to realize what a controversial issue I got intangeled into. Sorry if I've compromised your knowledge. If you follow up the discussion after that comment, you'll see what I mean.

 

There is no truth higher than facts!

 

So again:

"OOOPs... Now maybe as a newbie, it is advisable for me to stay out of discussions on topics, which were brewing for quite a while before causing further any collateral damage..."

 

Beyond that, the result of that discussion after your quotation and the research I followed up on the Internet on hyperthreading have convinced me to change my planned PC constellation from AMD to Intel!

 

So I ought to have thanked you instead.

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by BiBa

[JonRedcorn]

It's a smart buy for any person who is into simulators, nearly all of them from racing to flying to just about everything else runs better on high IPC high clocked Intel CPU's. These are just undeniable facts. Maybe when Zen 2 releases and AMD moves off that terrible node they have that was meant for low speed laptop chips they can get a nod.

[Gambit21]

I did weeks and weeks of research and chose Ryzen. Nothing Intel offered was more than a slight improvement over my 5 year old i5 2500k, and with the typical Intel upgrade path - which is to say NO upgrade path. Waste of money.

 

I couldn’t be more happy with Ryzen, it absolutely smokes - and I can throw a new chip on that mobo this year or next.

 

Caveats - I also run high end 3D apps and render engines  which capitalize on Rhyzen’s strengths, and I use a 4K 60hz monitor which means I’m not concerned with FPS so long as they’re pegged at 60.

 

YMMV but Intel wasn’t an option for me.

AMD for the foreseeable future.

 

 

[angus26]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

I couldn’t be more happy with Ryzen, it absolutely smokes - and I can throw a new chip on that mobo this year or next.

If I may ask, which ryzen? I’ve been looking to update my embarrassing cpu for awhile and was looking into the ryzen series.

[Gambit21]

1700, overclocked...which was as easy as can be.

 

[BiBa]

12 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I did weeks and weeks of research and chose Ryzen. Nothing Intel offered was more than a slight improvement over my 5 year old i5 2500k, and with the typical Intel upgrade path - which is to say NO upgrade path. Waste of money.   I couldn’t be more happy with Ryzen, it absolutely smokes - and I can throw a new chip on that mobo this year or next.   Caveats - I also run high end 3D apps and render engines  which capitalize on Rhyzen’s strengths, and I use a 4K 60hz monitor which means I’m not concerned with FPS so long as they’re pegged at 60.   

YMMV but Intel wasn’t an option for me.

AMD for the foreseeable future.

3

 

I'm no an IT specialist, but if ALL Simulations & Games do depend generally on 1 to 2 core (4 threadings), then following this Benchmark analysis 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-TR-1950X/3937vs3932

Intel is the clear winner:

+23% Faster single-core speed.  

+21% Faster quad-core speed.

+29% Faster OC single-core speed.

+31% Much faster OC quad-core speed.

(even if the engine limitation is at 12 Threads, Intel remains the winner, as long as AMD has limited resources) 

 

Whereas in other application domains (like CAD or 3D Max), where multi-core processing sets the rules, the Ryzen TR 1950X is the BIG winner: 

+113% Hugely faster multi-core speed.

+112% Hugely faster OC multi-core speed.

 

So Mitthrawnuruodo was right. (whom I have unjustly wrongly condemned)

 

I even got advice from the PC Shop, that for Gamers Intel is the better choice, even though the whole PC constellation change meant for them around 700€ less investment. 

As to DX12,  I am not sure but I doubt if SIM programmer will plan any DX12 in the near future since Vulkan will replace DirectX completely as far as many reports show. 

Yet the idea that all 32 hyperthreading of the Ryzen TR 1950X can be set in the simulation/game in the near future, means that the engine can deal easily with double amount of AI in the sky. Until then, it will remain a beautiful dream of that pie up high in the sky...

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by BiBa

[Sunde]

14 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I did weeks and weeks of research and chose Ryzen. Nothing Intel offered was more than a slight improvement over my 5 year old i5 2500k, and with the typical Intel upgrade path - which is to say NO upgrade path. Waste of money.

 

 

 

Gotta say im shocked that you cannot see the benfits of going from a i5-2500k to a i7-8700k, truthfully lol. 

[Gambit21]

5 hours ago, EAF331_Sunde said:

Gotta say im shocked that you cannot see the benfits of going from a i5-2500k to a i7-8700k, truthfully lol. 

 

Benxhmarks/improvement/cost - did not pencil out.

 

Ryzen did - it’s not that complicated.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

8 hours ago, BiBa said:

Intel is the clear winner

Those are two different chips and two different platforms. Core i7 8700k is a mainstream CPU while Threadripper is developed for people interested in HEDT platforms. If you play only than obviously 8700k would be cheaper and stronger CPU. However if you primarily use your PC for work and need quad-channel memory, 64 PCIE lanes and 16 c / 32 t than TR is for you. 

If you want to compare mainstream products than 8700k and 2700X make a lot more sense. 

 

6 hours ago, EAF331_Sunde said:

Gotta say im shocked that you cannot see the benfits of going from a i5-2500k to a i7-8700k, truthfully lol.

Though I'm not Gambit, I think you simply did not consider time he was buying 1700 and type of workload his PC is most used for ? Apart from making great missions and being a dedicated tester, Gambit also works with graphics and as far as I remember he is a proffesional 3d artist. So when he was buying 1700 seems Ryzen suited his needs best.

[Sunde]

Well thats not what you wrote initially. Infact you what you wrote was - 

21 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Nothing Intel offered was more than a slight improvement over my 5 year old i5 2500k

Which is just plain wrong. Now that you give the context, it makes perfect sense. 

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Benxhmarks/improvement/cost - did not pencil out.

 

Ryzen did - it’s not that complicated.

 im sure the threadripper is better suited for heavyduty graphics work. 

[Gambit21]

I’m sure you don’t use my apps.