Benchmark for CPU/RAM performance: Remagen 4.002 to 4.005

[dburne]

2 hours ago, CSW_FMF_Tommy544 said:

So guys, if I understand correctly, the Remagen 4.0 benchmarking method is not compatible with the newest patch and so I can't look at the performance numbers in the Google sheets file to see the effect the newest patch had on the distribution of the PC power requirements between CPU and GPU. From various comments I've seen in some threads and partially from my experience as well, it looks like the load was transferred more towards the GPU side.

 

My main question is, how useful it is in the current state of the game engine to go for the fastest clock speeds on the CPU? Is it worth it to aim for an 5 GHz+ overclocked Intel CPU or is it now sufficient to run let's say run a Ryzen 7, 4.6 GHz CPU and spend more cash on a more powerful GPU in order to maintain relatively stable 80-90 fps? Can some of you share your experience with the couple newest patches?

 

Thanks!

 

Yes, getting highest core clock still provides the greatest benefit imho.

5+ GHz is very beneficial to VR.

[chiliwili69]

20 hours ago, CSW_FMF_Tommy544 said:

So guys, if I understand correctly, the Remagen 4.0 benchmarking method is not compatible with the newest patch and so I can't look at the performance numbers in the Google sheets file to see the effect the newest patch had on the distribution of the PC power requirements between CPU and GPU

 

That´s right. The old track doesn´t work any more due to some undefined objects of pilot in some bombers. I didn´t tried the last patch from this week but I think it will not work either.

20 hours ago, CSW_FMF_Tommy544 said:

it looks like the load was transferred more towards the GPU side

That´s also right, we see a clear reduction of the CPU frametimes, so the CPU is not the limiting factor as it was before.

20 hours ago, CSW_FMF_Tommy544 said:

My main question is, how useful it is in the current state of the game engine to go for the fastest clock speeds on the CPU? Is it worth it to aim for an 5 GHz+ overclocked Intel CPU or is it now sufficient to run let's say run a Ryzen 7, 4.6 GHz CPU and spend more cash on a more powerful GPU in order to maintain relatively stable 80-90 fps? Can some of you share your experience with the couple newest patches

 

This is a difficult question.

To objectively answer it, we would need to have a proper dense benchmark, run several tests with Intel and Ryzens at different speeds and different graphcis settings.

We have been always whishing to have an ingame benchmark to properly measure the effect on performance of the settings and take the best decisions for hardware buy, but I assume there are other priorities. 

I made a poll for that https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/39713-il-2-in-game-benchmark/

77% of the people who voted wanted an in-game benchmark.  @Jason_Williams

[FoxbatRU]

I suspect that the processor load has not decreased, just the video card has become a bottleneck (besides with a general deterioration in the level of graphics).

And perhaps the new 3080 and 3090 will again allow you to freely have 120-144fps and the processor will again be able to work at full power.

[dburne]

1 hour ago, FoxbatRU said:

I suspect that the processor load has not decreased, just the video card has become a bottleneck (besides with a general deterioration in the level of graphics).

And perhaps the new 3080 and 3090 will again allow you to freely have 120-144fps and the processor will again be able to work at full power.

 

Most definitely the game still requires a lot of CPU Horsepower.

My 2080 Ti is on cruise.

[FoxbatRU]

4 часа назад, dburne сказал:

Most definitely the game still requires a lot of CPU Horsepower.

My 2080 Ti is on cruise.

I have 2080 very often now loaded at 99%. Even when the clouds and shadows are not ultra. And still, it’s not always possible to achieve 120 fps in a career. When the clouds are serious. But at 2080Ti feel sorry for the money.

Until 4.006 everything was fine. The video card was not loaded at 98-99%, 120fps was almost full load. And sometimes 144fps. And the picture is not had a problem with anti-aliasing.

 

[dburne]

2 hours ago, FoxbatRU said:

I have 2080 very often now loaded at 99%. Even when the clouds and shadows are not ultra. And still, it’s not always possible to achieve 120 fps in a career. When the clouds are serious. But at 2080Ti feel sorry for the money.

Until 4.006 everything was fine. The video card was not loaded at 98-99%, 120fps was almost full load. And sometimes 144fps. And the picture is not had a problem with anti-aliasing.

 

 

I assume we are talking about a couple of different things, as I am in VR and appears you are on monitor.

VR in this game is pretty demanding on the CPU.

I do though still get very good VR performance in this game.

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by dburne

[CSW_Tommy544]

19 hours ago, dburne said:

 

I assume we are talking about a couple of different things, as I am in VR and appears you are on monitor.

VR in this game is pretty demanding on the CPU.

I do though still get very good VR performance in this game.

 

I realized that I forgot to mention in my previous post that I am mainly interested in the VR performance, that's why I was talking about 80 fps - refresh rate of my Oculus Rift S. However, from the spreadsheet document it appears that if your GPU is not a bottleneck in your current settings, you need to have roughly twice as many FPS on monitor than what you want to achieve in VR. I guess it kind of makes sense, as you generally need to render the scene from 2 different view ports - eyes. In my case, that would be around 160 FPS on monitor, but it is difficult to determine what kind of CPU horse power is needed at the moment to achieve that.

[Alonzo]

2 hours ago, CSW_FMF_Tommy544 said:

I realized that I forgot to mention in my previous post that I am mainly interested in the VR performance, that's why I was talking about 80 fps - refresh rate of my Oculus Rift S. However, from the spreadsheet document it appears that if your GPU is not a bottleneck in your current settings, you need to have roughly twice as many FPS on monitor than what you want to achieve in VR. I guess it kind of makes sense, as you generally need to render the scene from 2 different view ports - eyes. In my case, that would be around 160 FPS on monitor, but it is difficult to determine what kind of CPU horse power is needed at the moment to achieve that.

 

It's difficult to compare without measuring the exact chip. My 8086K @ 5.0ghz went from being part of the bottleneck to just breezing through the game. Everything on my system is GPU limited with my Rift S, RTX 2080. If you take a spin through Chili's spreadsheet, maybe you can find someone who owns the kind of processor you're looking at, and ask them how things are on the latest patch, for them.

[SCG_Wulfe]

16 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

It's difficult to compare without measuring the exact chip. My 8086K @ 5.0ghz went from being part of the bottleneck to just breezing through the game. Everything on my system is GPU limited with my Rift S, RTX 2080. If you take a spin through Chili's spreadsheet, maybe you can find someone who owns the kind of processor you're looking at, and ask them how things are on the latest patch, for them.

 

Yep this has been my experience as well. My 9600k at 5.1 is hardly working in the new patches.

However, I had to lower a bunch of settings to maintain 90fps  and also be able to enable FXAA.  I found FXAA to be a requirement for reasonable spotting and ID in VR. I'm running on a GTX 1080 and it is absolutely tapped out and running at the max. I just this weekend installed a big add on GPU air cooler to lower temps on the card and allow overclocking headroom. With the 1080 overclocked, I am able to turn clouds to high and still maintain 90fps... without the overclock I have to run medium clouds. The GPU is a big factor now. 

Edited June 22, 2020 by SCG_Wulfe