Is this game CPU or GPU limited?

[SeriousJoker]

Hi I am new to this forum and also to the game. Right now I am optimizing my settings for a good VR experience and I made some experiments with different settings. While I was monitoring the performance with fpsVR I recognized that the CPU is most of the time pretty much relaxed while my GPU is almost at 100%. I attached a screenshot.

So does this mean that I have to reduce my settings in game to match the CPU frametimes? Or is there anything weird going on? To be honest I was expecting it to be the other way. My CPU is a i7 6700 and my GPU a 1080ti.

Cheers!

[WheelwrightPL]

That's a very relevant question, especially for VR which is extremely demanding on the hardware.

When you look at any contemporary CPU/GPU benchmarks it turns out that ALL the games become GPU-limited as they reach 4k or higher resolutions , so is IL2-Sturmovik an exception to this rule ?

I don't think so and here is my argument: play IL2 replay tracks, they have no physics, AI or plane-systems calculations, etc:, therefore their CPU workload is close to zero. Some people claim the tracks still perform those CPU-heavy calculations, but this makes zero sense to me.

So let's assume those replay tracks do consist of nearly 100% GPU processing. Despite that when viewing them at 4k I am still getting the same slowdowns, as when flying missions on which they were originally based, so there is effectively no net performance gained by eliminating a need for CPU processing.

Therefore it looks to me that at least at 4k resolutions IL2-Sturmovik is just as GPU-bound as any other game, and at that point CPU speed stops being relevant to a large extent.

[RedKestrel]

 

 

21 minutes ago, WheelwrightPL said:

That's a very relevant question, especially for VR which is extremely demanding on the hardware.

When you look at any contemporary CPU/GPU benchmarks it turns out that ALL the games become GPU-limited as they reach 4k or higher resolutions , so is IL2-Sturmovik an exception to this rule ?

I don't think so and here is my argument: play IL2 replay tracks, they have no physics, AI or plane-systems calculations, etc:, therefore their CPU workload is close to zero. Some people claim the tracks still perform those CPU-heavy calculations, but this makes zero sense to me.

So let's assume those replay tracks do consist of nearly 100% GPU processing. Despite that when viewing them at 4k I am still getting the same slowdowns, as when flying missions on which they were originally based, so there is effectively no net performance gained by eliminating a need for CPU processing.

Therefore it looks to me that at least at 4k resolutions IL2-Sturmovik is just as GPU-bound as any other game, and at that point CPU speed stops being relevant to a large extent.

The thing about the tracks is, we don't have to assume anything. You don't have to go by slow downs and performance gains, you just need a program that will measure actual component usage and log that. The thing to do would be to run the mission in real time while logging it with a track file, and then play back the track file, in both cases recording .

Having used the old Remagen benchmark to test my system before, I can tell you that tracks do not load only the GPU, there is still a significant load on the CPU. But it is lower than real-time gameplay. Moreover, a mission that is heavy on CPU seems to produce a track that is heavy on CPU - relative to a track of a mission that is light on CPU. The track, however, is always lighter on CPU than the live mission.

I think the tracks for the most part cut out the AI decision making routines and mission logic, but the FM, DM, and other factors that rely on the CPU are still recorded and applied. 

That said I think that for most players the game is GPU bound and even before the 4.006 patch which shifted some of the game's burden from the CPU to the GPU, it was probably the case for the average player with a budget card. In my case I had a GTX1060 that was hamstrung by only 3GB of memory. The card was never able to top out since the memory would fill right up, overflow into the RAM, and everything would bottleneck in the memory. With a new 1660 Super with 6GB of memory and 16GB of RAM, I went from Balanced settings all the way to Ultra on 1080p, getting better framerates, not stutters, and still not maxing out my card even in some intensive scenarios. Probably if the 1060 had 6GB of memory I would not even have had to upgrade.

 

 

[SeriousJoker]

But doesn’t the monitoring (screenshot) of my system kinda proof that there is way more load on the GPU? At least in my case?

 

 

I am questioning myself because I want to upgrade my system and I was sure my actual bottleneck is the CPU due to it’s age and technology (i7 6700). But now I am a bit unsure if a new GPU makes more sense.

 

[RedKestrel]

43 minutes ago, SeriousJoker said:

But doesn’t the monitoring (screenshot) of my system kinda proof that there is way more load on the GPU? At least in my case?

 

 

I am questioning myself because I want to upgrade my system and I was sure my actual bottleneck is the CPU due to it’s age and technology (i7 6700). But now I am a bit unsure if a new GPU makes more sense.

 

Much will depend on the scenario you are flying. At times where there are a lot of AI around, lots of AA and gunfire (and thus ballistics and damage calculations), and lots of active mission logic , the load on your CPU will probably be quite a bit higher. So in some situations you may be CPU bound, while in others you are GPU bound. You may just not have encountered a situation where your CPU was tapped out yet. That being said recent updates to the game have shifted more of the burden to the GPU. 

When you took that screenshot, what were you doing? Flying a quick mission, or online, or career mode? Quick missions will not stress your processor really unless you load up with lots of bombers. In Online play at least some of the CPU burden is taken up by the server. Career mode and scripted campaigns will generally hit the processor much harder than other modes of play because of all the mission logic and AI churning away in the background.

A 1080TI is still a beefy card, even in this day and age. The only realistic upgrade path would be a 2080TI IMO. You will likely be spending north of $1200 (assuming you are in the US?). A 2080 or a 2080 Super would also technically give you more performance but they are still in the ballpark of 800-1000 dollars and would give negligible gains over a 1080Ti. 

 

I would try flying various scenarios and monitoring your system resource consumption during those different times, and see what your results are. In particular see if more complex missions with lots of planes or bombers starts to stress your CPU, especially if you want to be able to fly these types of missions. If you are never maxing out your CPU then you know it is pointless to upgrade that, and you have 32GB of RAM so there is really no upgrade path there either. If some of your desired scenarios do provoke a CPU bottleneck then you can weigh the utility of upgrading your processor to help in those situations.

[SeriousJoker]

Thanks for the detailed reply. Everything makes perfect sense now. I will make some further tests tonight and will see if I will run into some spikes when there is more going on.

 

So far the only stops I really experienced are when I am closing in to a city on the Rhineland map. This is quite annoying but I read about this in many other posts. So this might be a well known problem. The rest feels quite acceptable even if my average frames are not higher than 45fps.

[ATAG_SKUD]

Download GPU-Z and run it while you are flying and it will tell you what is limiting. Its dependent on your machine spec and cooling not the game. 9 times out of 10 it will be your GPU clock that is limiting.

skud

 

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by ATAG_SKUD

[sniperton]

On 6/24/2020 at 4:21 PM, RedKestrel said:

I think the tracks for the most part cut out the AI decision making routines and mission logic, but the FM, DM, and other factors that rely on the CPU are still recorded and applied.

I guess you're right, otherwise FM or DM updates wouldn't render old tracks unplayable.

[Solitojorgesoo]

I am using my good and old rig with a Core i7 990 at 4,5 Ghz, 24 Gb RAM,  and a GTX 1060  6 GB, and have no problems at all.  I have my graphic settings at max, except shadows and clouds, Generally I get more than 100 FpS with a minimun of 50 FPs at hard situations with very heavy cloudy days ( I  am using the clouds and cumulimbus mod, which is a FPS eater)

bu