Jump to content
von_Michelstamm

Question about cores and processor speed for running il2

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Currently have a 2.9ghz quad core i7 (boosts above 4ghz) MacBook. I can run smoothly on better than medium settings but want max, and dense frontline activity slows things down.
Considering purchasing a new, 2.4ghz eight core i9 (boosts to 5ghz).

I was a little confused that a top of the line machine would have less ghz than it did in 2016, and wondering if that would negatively affect il2 performance, or if having double the cores would actually give me much better performance and allow maxed out graphics settings. Thoughts?

I am aware there are better/cheaper options than a mac, but please humor me.
 

 

Edited by von_Michelstamm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, von_Michelstamm said:

if having double the cores would actually give me much better performance and allow maxed out graphics settings

No, at the moment 4 cores is more than enough. I don't think you'll gain anything. You want a higher frequency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, von_Michelstamm said:

I was a little confused that a top of the line machine would have less ghz than it did in 2016, and wondering if that would negatively affect il2 performance, or if having double the cores would actually give me much better performance and allow maxed out graphics settings. Thoughts?

 

With increasing core counts, base clocks are lowered to fit within a certain power/cooling requirement bracket. That doesn’t matter much, as neither base nor boost clocks accurately represent the speed that you’ll actually get during typical usage. To get an estimate of real performance, look at reviews with benchmarks in relevant workloads.

 

That said, the extra cores are useless for Il-2.

 

However, a strong GPU is also necessary for good performance. None of the MacBook models have GPUs sufficient to run Il-2 Ultra at anything near native resolution. 

 

If you want good graphics performance, don’t get a MacBook.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will see the most performance gains by the best graphics card you can install. iL-2 relies heavily on the graphics card to do it's processing. The cpu and ram do very little in this game. Which is why under full load you will only see about 5-15% of cpu used and a couple gigs of ram.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, von_Michelstamm said:

I’ll likely see a frame rate improvement over what I’m getting now though, right?

 

 

Certainly. Just make sure to choose the Radeon Pro Vega 20 option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

You will see the most performance gains by the best graphics card you can install. iL-2 relies heavily on the graphics card to do it's processing. The cpu and ram do very little in this game. 

 

This is NOT correct.  The most benefit to performance is found by having a 'fast' cpu.  It does not need to be six or eight cores as this is wasted in GBS but a cpu running at over 4Ghz or overclocked to a higher figure will give you the best performance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

This is NOT correct.  The most benefit to performance is found by having a 'fast' cpu.  It does not need to be six or eight cores as this is wasted in GBS but a cpu running at over 4Ghz or overclocked to a higher figure will give you the best performance. 

 

My statement IS correct, because the game relies on video memory and gpu core processing. Cpu/ram are secondary for the reasons I stated that you left out. 

Edited by Geronimo553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my previous rig which was an I7 4820k at 4.5 GHz, I ran this 2080 Ti on it. I had replaced a 1080 Ti  on that rig and saw a small difference.

On my new build I did in Jan, which is i9 9900k at 5.1 GHz, I saw a massive improvement over the previous rig with the same 2080 Ti card.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This CPU vs GPU benefit argument is silly. I'm sure you're all aware that the correct answer is "it depends". The relative strength of your components as well as the display device will determine which component becomes the bottleneck.

 

A MBP with 2880x1800 display and GTX 1050-level GPU will end up GPU-limited much of the time. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

My statement IS correct, because the game relies on video memory and gpu core processing. Cpu/ram are secondary for the reasons I stated that you left out. 

 

Do you have any measurements to back that up? Step on over into the VR forum where people are doing science and measurement and have spreadsheets of figures showing that CPU is very important. IL2 is heavily CPU bound, more than you would expect, and so you need to pair a good high-Mhz CPU with a good graphics card for best results. CPU and memory are *not* secondary by any means.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

 

Do you have any measurements to back that up? Step on over into the VR forum where people are doing science and measurement and have spreadsheets of figures showing that CPU is very important. IL2 is heavily CPU bound, more than you would expect, and so you need to pair a good high-Mhz CPU with a good graphics card for best results. CPU and memory are *not* secondary by any means.

 

Here is the game under full load of cpu/ram ZlJ9dzz.png

 

and here is gpu usage g6LzRpw.png


The game is optimized for gpu performance and usage.

Edited by Geronimo553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It only means your GPU is bottlenecking the rest of the hardware.

 

With all FM, DM and AI calculations being strictly CPU dependent in this sim, as soon as one wants to play campaigns with lots of units, or go to heavily unit-populated server, or even spam quick mission generator with bombers shooting their guns all over the place, the single core CPU performance becomes primary concern. Il-2 is not all that much different than DCS in this regard (sadly).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

Do you have any measurements to back that up? Step on over into the VR forum where people are doing science and measurement and have spreadsheets of figures showing that CPU is very important. IL2 is heavily CPU bound, more than you would expect, and so you need to pair a good high-Mhz CPU with a good graphics card for best results. CPU and memory are *not* secondary by any means.

 

Geronimo, please go to the VR forum and study the well-founded research on this topic. And please spare us with your wrong conclusions.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I agree that IL2 is CPU bound but in other hand I don't recomend a quad-core because currenctly GPUs are using multiple cores, such 6 or more.

A Intel I5 9600K (6/6) is a nice choose (high clock speed) to fit with IL2 but I recommend Ryzen 7 2700x (8/12) instead I5 or I7 8700k (6/12) or you may have GPU bottleneck.

Edited by SCG_ErwinP
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grancesc said:

 

Geronimo, please go to the VR forum and study the well-founded research on this topic. And please spare us with your wrong conclusions.

 

4 hours ago, Art-J said:

It only means your GPU is bottlenecking the rest of the hardware.

 

With all FM, DM and AI calculations being strictly CPU dependent in this sim, as soon as one wants to play campaigns with lots of units, or go to heavily unit-populated server, or even spam quick mission generator with bombers shooting their guns all over the place, the single core CPU performance becomes primary concern. Il-2 is not all that much different than DCS in this regard (sadly).

 

Bravo to you both, this is exactly why the game is so shrouded in mystery of why the game underperforms and no one knows why or can quite figure it out. Because the forums are filled with so much wrong and misleading information. I’ve shown what the game is doing under load and still in denial the gpu is the primary component in the game’s processing. I’m not going to bother to cite the endless threads on the game stutter subject that proves my point since clearly it will only be met with further nay sayers. Read into stutter problem and it will be very evident that the biggest difference in performance gains are found by improving the gpu of such individuals. The cpu and ram play little part in the game and it is clear as day from both my experience playing pc games for twenty years and in the performance charts. Deny all you like.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Geronimo553 what’s your config, settings and what kind of mission were you flying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

I’ve shown what the game is doing under load and still in denial the gpu is the primary component in the game’s processing.

 

You've done no such thing. Maybe if you showed an actual benchmark of various CPU and GPU configurations you would have made some kind of point, but all you did was show your GPU running at 100% and claimed the CPU has no effect. I can do the same thing by setting nVidia DSR to some insane resolution and cranking all the graphics options. I could show the reverse by running at an extremely low resolution and then downclocking my CPU so that it bottlenecked the GPU.

 

Over in the VR forum we have actual data with an actual graph showing CPU scaling in the game, I would advise anyone who's interested in building a rig to go look there rather than anywhere else.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

 

 

the forums are filled with so much wrong and misleading information. 

 

You seem to be doing this yourself rather a lot recently.. Maybe dial back the attitude a bit and realise you do not know everything.. Acceptance of this will make your life easier and you may even learn something 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

 

 

Bravo to you both, this is exactly why the game is so shrouded in mystery of why the game underperforms and no one knows why or can quite figure it out. Because the forums are filled with so much wrong and misleading information. I’ve shown what the game is doing under load and still in denial the gpu is the primary component in the game’s processing. I’m not going to bother to cite the endless threads on the game stutter subject that proves my point since clearly it will only be met with further nay sayers. Read into stutter problem and it will be very evident that the biggest difference in performance gains are found by improving the gpu of such individuals. The cpu and ram play little part in the game and it is clear as day from both my experience playing pc games for twenty years and in the performance charts. Deny all you like.

 

Hi @Geronimo553,

 

The issue is that the number you are watching is the load average of all processing cores inside your CPU. If you switch to a per-core detailed view, you will see that a single core is receiving most of the load, while other cores are completely idle.   

 

The  evidence suggests that the simulation is running most of its computations on a single-thread (in other words, mostly exploiting a single core) Multiple cores can only be leveraged by a single program *if* the program is written to do so explicitly. 

 

If you go to SteamVR ->Developer ->Adanced Frame Timing, you can get a very detailed graphic that will show CPU vs GPU consumption.  The graph shows on a yellow area,  the "spare  processing power" that was available between frames.  If either graph exceeds the yellow area, this means that you are losing frames, because the computations excceded the maximum alloted time (11 ms to be precise for a 90 fps frame rate) to draw a single frame.  In my case (I have an 8 core CPU @4.9GHz) during complex missions (especially single-player), I can see that sometimes the GPU is not coping,  but most of the time, it is the CPU that is falling behind.

 

image.thumb.png.4f85edd38382107183b74cd2d53cb3dd.png

 

 

Hence, the common (and in my opinion, correct) advice is, strive for a CPU that has good single-thread performance and overclocks well, (The i7-7700K CPU is very good in this respect) AND a powerful GPU.

 

Cheers!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dakpilot said:

 

You seem to be doing this yourself rather a lot recently.. Maybe dial back the attitude a bit and realise you do not know everything.. Acceptance of this will make your life easier and you may even learn something 


Amusing statement, but far from the truth as per your usual personal hit pieces dak. 🧐

 

1 hour ago, OG_Rosco said:

 

Hi @Geronimo553,

 

Hence, the common (and in my opinion, correct) advice is, strive for a CPU that has good single-thread performance and overclocks well, (The i7-7700K CPU is very good in this respect) AND a powerful GPU.

 

Cheers!

 

Thank you for that, by far the most analytical evidence I have seen in the discussion, as typically only opinion pieces are provided by individuals wanting to argue. I myself have a 6700k at 4.5ghz so my results would not be far behind from your own. Now I believe you have completely proven my point about why cpu load has taken a back seat to gpu processing. The game is not optimized to utilize all cores and instead is limited to single core usage. This is coding from back in like 2007 where single and duo cores were the main stay on the market. Then by the time quad cores were being pushed out the following year most programs would not see any advances because programs/games could not utilize all the cores from intel chipsets to their fullest capability for multi cores. AMD was suffering from this issue far before intel caught onto the multicore concept. But the problem still remains that mainly "some" programs/games still do not utilize all cores evenly in their coding and instead solely rely on one core to do the processing, which is inefficient. You have described the exact reason why iL-2 primarily leans on the gpu for processing and performance instead of utilizing more of the cpu. Which is what I have tried to repeatedly express and is met with constant denial from a handful of individuals pushing an agenda from one group. If iL-2 was coded to perform more tasks using more than one core I would entirely agree with those saying the game is optimized for cpu usage. Though as you yourself have stated, only one core is in use thus the coding is not utilizing nor optimized to the maximum potential a multi core cpu can offer. Hence why the game's performance is based on available gpu processing power. If iL-2 were were coded to use all cores correctly then we would see our cpu cores have far more usage across the board. Instead we see minimal usage in the cpu department. That is why when someone upgrades their graphics card they will see more performance gains in iL-2 versus upgrading their ram or cpu. Which has been one of my findings from assisting people with solving their game stutter issues. The coding in iL-2 is not optimized to use the cpu and relies on gpu processing power.
 

Edited by Geronimo553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

The coding in iL-2 is not optimized to use the cpu and relies on gpu processing power.

 

Your statement doesn't make sense. For the game to render a frame, both the CPU and GPU are involved. The CPU calculates the game state, runs physics and AI, and sends geometry draw calls to the GPU. The GPU then takes the geometry and textures and all that stuff and renders a frame. The game "relies" on both pieces to contribute to a fluid gaming experience, as well as all the other stuff -- RAM, disk, sound chips, network chips, etc etc. Any one of these components may be the bottleneck.

 

For most people flying in 2D on a 60hz monitor the monitor is the limiting factor. If someone isn't hitting 60hz then yes, the GPU is often the culprit. But increase that to a high refresh rate panel or a VR headset (which is both high refresh rate and twice as many draw calls) and the CPU will be a significant limiting factor. In any case, no-one can speculate as to the bottleneck, it needs to be measured using tools such as the above. You stating "upgrade your GPU, it's always the GPU at fault in IL2" is bad advice.

 

I'm really not sure what "agenda" we're pushing. Truth and science?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

I'm really not sure what "agenda" we're pushing. Truth and science?

 

Not you, unless you want to include yourself for some reason. I refer to those who have a personal agenda about slandering me at every turn in this forum. Regardless though, an improved graphics card will net the most performance gains in iL-2 versus any other hardware improvement comparatively. Otherwise I completely agree to your statement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the last several posts are saying the same basic thing: GPU is utilized more effectively than CPU in this game. Is that a fair statement?
 

I came here in search of help prioritizing upgrades to my computer. I imagine many others are doing the same. I'm very interested in hearing the opinions of folks here on the following:

 

I am using an Odyssey+ and getting on average 35 FPS with most settings dialed back. Performance is playable but could be better, same goes for the resolution. Right now, I have the following components in my machine that I am considering upgrading:

  • i7-5820K Haswell-E 6-Core 3.3GHz (currently overclocked to 4.2GHz)
  • EVGA GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB 

I assume that in order to get the best performance increase in VR, I should first upgrade my video card. Assuming that I upgrade it to say, a 2080, my CPU would then become the bottleneck, but to a lesser degree than if I upgraded my CPU first to a newer i7. Does this make sense?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, TWC_Creep said:

I am using an Odyssey+ and getting on average 35 FPS with most settings dialed back. Performance is playable but could be better, same goes for the resolution. Right now, I have the following components in my machine that I am considering upgrading:

  • i7-5820K Haswell-E 6-Core 3.3GHz (currently overclocked to 4.2GHz)
  • EVGA GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB 

I assume that in order to get the best performance increase in VR, I should first upgrade my video card. Assuming that I upgrade it to say, a 2080, my CPU would then become the bottleneck, but to a lesser degree than if I upgraded my CPU first to a newer i7. Does this make sense?

 

It depends on why you're getting 35 FPS. Can you determine the CPU and GPU frame timing? 35 fps is ~28ms, so either the CPU or the GPU (or both) require 28ms to render a frame. If you look at the timing and realize "oh yes, CPU is taking only 15ms to render a frame, GPU is 28ms" then upgrading the GPU would give you a theoretical 1000/15 = 66 FPS result, if the CPU became the bottleneck. If you realize "oh wow, the 980Ti is only taking 11ms to render a frame, but my Haswell is the bottleneck at 28ms" then upgrading the CPU will give you a theoretical 90 fps with the same graphics card.

 

Does that make sense? There's loads more factors such as exact graphics settings, supersample, all that kind of thing, but the general idea is to measure which is the current slow component in order to determine the likely benefit of an upgrade. The 980Ti is a pretty beefy card, I believe roughly equivalent to a 1070, which is why I would want to measure before deciding it was no good.

 

Edit: And if you do determine the CPU is the limiting factor, the current best bang-for-buck CPU for IL2 in VR is the Intel 9600K coupled to a 240/280mm liquid cooler and a motherboard with good overclocking support and 3200mhz RAM. Just in case it turns out the CPU is the issue and you want to upgrade. 🙂

Edited by Alonzo
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, thank you @Alonzo for that very detailed answer! I will try to determine the frame timing tonight... I assume the process for this is to use the "Display Frame Timing" menu option in SteamVR? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

3 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

Thank you for that, by far the most analytical evidence I have seen in the discussion,

 

Thanks!  Like @Alonzo suggested, if you visit the VR threads you will find some really well conducted benchmarks over there,  quite interesting finds!

 

3 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

 The game is not opmotized to utilize all cores and instead is limited to single core usage. This is coding from back in like 2007 where single and duo cores were the main stay on the market. Then by the time quad cores were being pushed out the following year most programs would not see any advances because programs/games could not utilize all the cores from intel chipsets to their fullest capability for multi cores. AMD was suffering from this issue far before intel caught onto the multicore concept. But the problem still remains that mainly "some" programs/games still do not utilize all cores evenly in their coding and instead solely rely on one core to do the processing, which is inefficient.

 

Yes, the evidence suggests that this may be the case and hopefully we will see some improvements in the future.  Multi-threaded programming is complex. You need to be very careful when multiple cores attempt to use global (shared) state, there are many dependency chains where you need to have the result of one computation before you can start another (not everything can be paralellized), plus, there are other limiting factors (like limited, shared bus bandwidth between available cores). Another difficulty is creating software that can adapt to a diverse hardware ecosystem - some users may have only 4 cores available, while others may have 64 or more!

 

3 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

Though as you yourself have stated, only one core is in use thus the coding is not utilizing nor optimized to the maximum potential a multi core cpu can offer. Hence why the game's performance is based on available gpu processing power. If iL-2 were were coded to use all cores correctly then we would see our cpu cores have far more usage across the board. Instead we see minimal usage in the cpu department. That is why when someone upgrades their graphics card they will see more performance gains in iL-2 versus upgrading their ram or cpu. Which has been one of my findings from assisting people with solving their game stutter issues. The coding in iL-2 is not opmotized to use the cpu and relies on gpu processing power.

  

 

Well, in a sense, yes, you may see minimal usage in the CPU department -if you consider the full processing power available in multiple cores,-however, what you get is often a single core hitting 100% capacity at peak times (this is relative as single-thread processing often jumps between cores if you don't fix the thread affinity). This is why fast CPU clock speed is vital: you want to avoid hitting very often that 100%, no matter if you have 31 other idle cores at 0%.  If running @ 4.9 GHz produces CPU bottlenecks, imagine someone running @2Ghz!    EDIT: this bottleneck I'm referring to, describes my particular scenario (180 fps, 90 fps per eye in VR).  It is quite possible that for someone striving for 60 fps (the frame-rate limit on most standard monitors), a 2GHz CPU proves to be more than adequate - as @Alonzo correctly stated, it DEPENDS).

 

So, I think it is fair to say that in its current state, a fast CPU is as important to the simulation as it is a fast GPU.  

 

Cheers!

image.png

Edited by OG_Rosco
I was projecting my current configuration as being "universal", corrected this
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Geronimo553 said:

 

Not you, unless you want to include yourself for some reason. I refer to those who have a personal agenda about slandering me at every turn in this forum. Regardless though, an improved graphics card will net the most performance gains in iL-2 versus any other hardware improvement comparatively. Otherwise I completely agree to your statement. 

 

No one is pushing an agenda or slandering you at every turn... 

 

But when you make statements as fact saying cpu and ram play little part in IL-2 Box you are clearly talking from an ill informed position, and giving very bad advice.

 

It has been proven for many years (in many threads) that single thread cpu performance is the most critical performance limitation and until a change from DX 11 is made (a non trivial task) will likely continue,  DX12 would also cause IL-2 to be inaccessible to a lot of the current player base. 

 

Properly multi threaded programs are (comparatively) as rare as hens teeth for many good reasons

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

But when you make statements as fact saying cpu and ram play little part in IL-2 Box you are clearly talking from an ill informed position, and giving very bad advice.

 

It has been proven for many years (in many threads) that single thread cpu performance is the most critical performance limitation and until a change from DX 11 is made (a non trivial task) will likely continue,  DX12 would also cause IL-2 to be inaccessible to a lot of the current player base. 

 

Not to be too argumentative, but the real answer is "it depends." If you have a slow GPU, then the CPU is not the limiting factor. A balanced rig with well-matched CPU and GPU will give the best result for a given hardware cost, and that exact balance depends on the use-case (pancake or VR? what resolution screen or headset? what refresh rate?) as well as game engine.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

No one is pushing an agenda or slandering you at every turn... 

 

But when you make statements as fact saying cpu and ram play little part in IL-2 Box you are clearly talking from an ill informed position, and giving very bad advice.

 

It has been proven for many years (in many threads) that single thread cpu performance is the most critical performance limitation and until a change from DX 11 is made (a non trivial task) will likely continue,  DX12 would also cause IL-2 to be inaccessible to a lot of the current player base. 

 

Properly multi threaded programs are (comparatively) as rare as hens teeth for many good reasons

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

 

The consistent organized laughing/confused reactions of my posts down to the minute and the status quo of causing bickering wars to lock threads you disagree with is not pushing an agenda is it? Very "assuming" statement to say the least Dak...

As for the subject material the past several replies have covered the subject and I agree with Alonso. A "it depends" is a big factor in the overall outcome.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2019 at 2:19 AM, Geronimo553 said:

. The cpu and ram do very little in this game. Which is why under full load you will only see about 5-15% of cpu used and a couple gigs of ram.

 

On 6/12/2019 at 2:45 PM, Geronimo553 said:

My statement IS correct, because the game relies on video memory and gpu core processing. Cpu/ram are secondary for the reasons I stated that you left out

 

There is no agenda 

 

There is no intention to get threads locked 

 

You are simply passing bad information stated as facts. 

 

Pretty much all flight sims rely on single thread performance as the limiting factor, they do not work like other games. And this state will likely continue while restricted by DX 11 graphics API. 

 

Of course it would be a leap forward and greatly appreciated for more threads to be leveraged, especially with the recent rapid growth of multi threaded CPU tech, but this is a hypothetical moot point. 

 

True it could be said that "it depends" but that is in the case of a very imbalanced system with powerful CPU and weak GPU, but this is common sense and nothing to do with how IL-2 works. 

 

For the current foreseeable future IL-2 and other flight sims that have high compute and graphic needs will be restricted by CPU single thread performance with GPU being secondary. 

 

Your statements above are baloney and bad info for people who may spend a lot of money on upgrading GPU to find little or no improvement. 

 

Making (your) opinion statements as facts (often wrong) will will be laughed at, a change in posting style will go a long way in avoiding this. Going into victim mode and spamming threads when it is suggested that you are wrong is the very way to get threads locked. 

 

Some of your "help" is very constructive (and your enthusiasm to be commended) but your attitude not so much

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

True it could be said that "it depends" but that is in the case of a very imbalanced system with powerful CPU and weak GPU, but this is common sense and nothing to do with how IL-2 works. 

 

For the current foreseeable future IL-2 and other flight sims that have high compute and graphic needs will be restricted by CPU single thread performance with GPU being secondary. 

 

 

While I absolutely agree that there is no "agenda", these statements are incorrect. "It depends" really is the only correct description. Outside VR, many common system configurations will be limited by the GPU much of the time. 

 

For example, a GTX 1080 will frequently be fully utilized at 2560x1440 with an i7-6700K (by no means imbalanced). This is even more visible with common GTX 1050 or 1060-class GPUs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

 

 

While I absolutely agree that there is no "agenda", these statements are incorrect. "It depends" really is the only correct description. Outside VR, many common system configurations will be limited by the GPU much of the time. 

 

For example, a GTX 1080 will frequently be fully utilized at 2560x1440 with an i7-6700K (by no means imbalanced). This is even more visible with common GTX 1050 or 1060-class GPUs.

 

Very true but i7 6700k is highest performing single thread CPU of its time and barely outperformed by later and current chips. 

 

There is very little performance upgrade for this CPU, paring the highest price i7 CPU with 50 series Nvidia GPU would be imbance in a system? And would definitely fall into the "depends" situation 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Geronimo, maybe if you expressed yourself clearer from the get go, there would be no further argument at all. Because you initial reply (about CPU not being important) and the further, more thorough one (about multicore CPUs not being fully utilized, which is obvious for anyone playing combat sims for the last decade) convey two completely different and unrelated messages at first glance, even if you thought they meant the same thing.

 

Edited by Art-J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/13/2019 at 7:06 PM, Geronimo553 said:

 

Not you, unless you want to include yourself for some reason. I refer to those who have a personal agenda about slandering me at every turn in this forum. Regardless though, an improved graphics card will net the most performance gains in iL-2 versus any other hardware improvement comparatively. Otherwise I completely agree to your statement. 

 

You need to take an Operations Research class to get a clear idea of the non-linear effects of improving the availability of one or more specific resources in a complex situation.

Edited by J2_Bidu
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s easy to test the CPU or GPU limited scenarios. 

Do a situation with many other aircraft and AI and you’ll find your FPS capped no matter what the graphics settings. Even switching from 4K to 1080p won’t boost the frame rate. That’s being CPU limited. 

GPU limited settings include higher resolutions, antialiasing etc. 

Most players can get acceptable frame rates simply by adjusting graphic settings but the reason a strong CPU is essential is you can’t as easily adjust the numbers of other aircraft or AI or simplify the physics. Those are the situations players find a bottleneck with and those aren’t helped by the GPU

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/14/2019 at 4:05 AM, Dakpilot said:

Properly multi threaded programs are (comparatively) as rare as hens teeth for many good reasons

 

 

Woah, hang on. I think there's good evidence to show that more and more AAA games are taking better advantage of multicore CPUs with hyperthreading/SMT, and Productivity programs that make use of multicores/threads are the norm.

It is clearly a great way to make more CPU resources available/dollar. AMDs new Ryzen 3000 series looks set to underline that point further.

 

Here is a recent video from Hardware Unboxed that shows how the 2017 Ryzen R5 1600 has improved or overtaken the i5 7600k in AAA gaming performance against over the last 2 years since they both launched - principally because major game developers are optimising for higher core counts now.

These games include very popular titles such as Battlefield 5, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Assassins Creed: Odyssey.

https://youtu.be/97sDKvMHd8c

 

Of course BoX is what it is, single core heavy and not well optimised, but i feel it's something we could keep pressure on the Devs about. The gaming world is going that way, CPUs are going that way and 6-8 core CPUS are out there at very good prices. The game just doesn't appear to use them properly. It seems to me a wasted opportunity to have the game perform much better, for VR users and everyone else.

 

Hell, in Flight Sim land it would be a USP vs the competitors. Imagine if BoX was decently optimised for multicores/threads and DCS wasn't, it would make quite a difference.

Edited by US103_Baer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I’m wrong but this game already uses multi-core processing. Look are the minimum system specs and you’ll see Core i5 and i7 CPUs listed. Those are quad core. What’s still important is the performance of each core hence the need for strong single thread performance. But that doesn’t mean the game is only running single core. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but this game already uses multi-core processing. Look are the minimum system specs and you’ll see Core i5 and i7 CPUs listed. Those are quad core. What’s still important is the performance of each core hence the need for strong single thread performance. But that doesn’t mean the game is only running single core. 

 

Yes, the game does use multiple cores. However, performance is largely limited by a single thread (presumably the one responsible for most of the rendering). That's why Il-2 will reportedly run just fine on a Pentium G4400 with only two cores and two threads, while other games will fail completely without additional cores.

 

Note that the listed system requirements really don't mean much as hardware changes over time. What is a "2.8 GHz i5"? Probably an ancient i5-760 from 2010 that's been surpassed by just about every modern CPU.

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

 

Yes, the game does use multiple cores. However, performance is largely limited by a single thread (presumably the one responsible for most of the rendering). That's why Il-2 will reportedly run just fine on a Pentium G4400 with only two cores and two threads, while other games will fail completely without additional cores.

THIS.

I used to run IL2 on 1200p super smooth with G4560 (and 1060 3GB) which is a modern pentium with HT (2+2 cores) 2 virtual but just 2 physical cores running on 3.5 Ghz.

The bigger problem is netcode....its not perfect and is very limited and is independant of which hardware you have.....

Edited by =VARP=Tvrdi

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...