The More CPU Cores, The Better?

[Reinhardt]

I have a quad core I5-7600k and a GTX1060 6Gb. I think I am CPU bottlenecked with this game and am considering upgrading to a six-core, 12 thread I5-10600K. Can this game utilize more cores and threads? Also, is the GTX1060 6Gb enough to achieve ~100fps in 1080p, max settings? Currently I'll get around 70-80fps multiplayer with. Not sure if the new rendering relies on the CPU or GPU.   

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Looks like higher clocks speeds and better instructions handling change performance more significantly than just more cores. In other words new ,fast CPU. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Norz]

1 hour ago, Reinhardt said:

I have a quad core I5-7600k and a GTX1060 6Gb. I think I am CPU bottlenecked with this game and am considering upgrading to a six-core, 12 thread I5-10600K. Can this game utilize more cores and threads? Also, is the GTX1060 6Gb enough to achieve ~100fps in 1080p, max settings? Currently I'll get around 70-80fps multiplayer with. Not sure if the new rendering relies on the CPU or GPU.   

 

 

It will not help (6 cores). I have i3 9350k (only 4 cores) and my monitoring tools shows that usually only 2 cores have 70..80%. Try to find the CPU with 5Ghz it will provide a better game experience. Your GPU is just not fast enough. You can try RTX2060 6gb to improve your FPS (I have at home both of them (1060 and 2060) and the 2060 is faster about 30%)

 

P.S: Did you try to overclock your i5 7600k? I think you can get 4.6Ghz easily.

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/10969/the-intel-core-i57600k-91w-review-the-more-amenable-mainstream-performer/11

Edited May 20, 2021 by Norz

[chiliwili69]

1 hour ago, Reinhardt said:

Can this game utilize more cores and threads?

 

IL-2 has several threads, but one of them is the heavy thread which bottleneck the final fps achieved (assuming GPU is not constrained).

 

So, according to my tests, having more than 4 cores is not an advantage for IL-2 engine.

Using Hypertreading doesn´t give either any extra fps.

 

What it is important is the IPC and the CPU clock of the CPU. In the SYN_Vander benchmark we did several test and the best CPU are 5600x/5800X/5900X/5950X or the new 11th gen of Intel (11600K, 11700K, 11900K). So if you upgrade don´t go for the 10th gen, since the gain will be very small in your case.

1 hour ago, Reinhardt said:

Also, is the GTX1060 6Gb enough to achieve ~100fps in 1080p, max settings?

 

Some settings affects the CPU, other affects the GPU and other both CPU&GPU.

 

The GPU is impacted by the Cloud setting, MSAA, and perhaps shadows. Try to fly with no clouds and no MSAA to unload GPU, and then put all other settings to Off/low. So you will know what is your max achieable fps, and from there start to increase settings at your choice.

 

Here some guidance about what settings impact the CPU: 

 

1 hour ago, Reinhardt said:

Not sure if the new rendering relies on the CPU or GPU.

 

Building the geomatric scene is done by CPU (How many objects, explosions, bullets, damage model, flying model, etc)

 

Then, when this is done, the GPU does the render (here higher clouds require more complex render, MSAA require more sampling, more resolution like 4K require more pixels).

[Reinhardt]

On 5/19/2021 at 11:50 PM, Norz said:

P.S: Did you try to overclock your i5 7600k? I think you can get 4.6Ghz easily.

Yes, I think I used my Mobo's OC Genie which set it at 4.5Ghz on and off for a while. I just recently OC'd it to 4.9Ghz and still had some fps and stuttering issues even on High settings instead of ultra. I then shut off canopy reflections completely and got a huge boost in performance, it runs quite nice now at all altitudes and AI quantity. I'm guessing the reflections rely on the GPU. Just in a large quick mission battle with settings on high and everything turned on, it seems to run anywhere between 85-100 fps, can't complain.  

Edited June 1, 2021 by Reinhardt

[Dutch2]

On 5/20/2021 at 7:29 AM, Reinhardt said:

I have a quad core I5-7600k and a GTX1060 6Gb. I think I am CPU bottlenecked with this game and am considering upgrading to a six-core, 12 thread I5-10600K. Can this game utilize more cores and threads? Also, is the GTX1060 6Gb enough to achieve ~100fps in 1080p, max settings? Currently I'll get around 70-80fps multiplayer with. Not sure if the new rendering relies on the CPU or GPU.   

 

My advice wait for the new DDR5 systems? 

[Jaws2002]

On 6/1/2021 at 5:55 PM, Dutch2 said:

 

My advice wait for the new DDR5 systems? 

 

Yep. Getting a new platform compatible with DDR5 will give you a chance to speed up your computer down the road, when faster DDR5 memory becomes available. 

 Another thing about ryzen. While for this game a six core 5600x is enough, AMD uses faster cores ( better silicone) in their bigger CPU's. So the higher up the stack out go, the higher clocks you are going to get... Or you can sustain them longer.

It's not a big difference but it's there.

[BladeMeister]

Instructions Per Cycle (IPC) is the spec you should be interested in regarding CPU speed if I am not mistaken.

The more instructions per cycle the better.

 

S!Blade<><<

 

Edited June 6, 2021 by BladeMeister

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

1 minute ago, BladeMeister said:

Instructions Per Cycle (IPC) is the spec you should be interested in regarding CPU speed if I am not mistaken.

The more instructions per cycle the better

 

S!Blade<><<

 

Yep, but it is still pretty sad that this game doesn't run without a hitch in 2021 in vr in singleplayer with even the beastliest system out there. It seems there will always be some microstuttering, frame drops, and time dilation.

[dbzero]

From what I've been able to gather, when it comes to CPUs and gaming, more cores doesn't equate to better performance. Clock speed matters more. My old I7 6700K while old is still respectable for gaining even if it only has 4 cores. I was going to splurge and get the Ryzen 5950X but once I did some research and asked myself what do I really do-gaming I went with the 5800X and just made sure I spent a few extra bucks on cooling as the 5800X was reported to run a little hotter.

 

More cores matter if you're a heavy multi-tasker or doing things like video editing. While not the best for video editing I would think my 5950X and 3080 with 32 gigs of ram wouldn't be too bad for video editing if I wanted to get into that.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

7 hours ago, dbzero said:

From what I've been able to gather, when it comes to CPUs and gaming, more cores doesn't equate to better performance. Clock speed matters more. My old I7 6700K while old is still respectable for gaining even if it only has 4 cores. I was going to splurge and get the Ryzen 5950X but once I did some research and asked myself what do I really do-gaming I went with the 5800X and just made sure I spent a few extra bucks on cooling as the 5800X was reported to run a little hotter.

 

More cores matter if you're a heavy multi-tasker or doing things like video editing. While not the best for video editing I would think my 5950X and 3080 with 32 gigs of ram wouldn't be too bad for video editing if I wanted to get into that.

If only it were this simple...yes clock speed matters, but IPC (instructions per clock) matters even more. Not to mention microarchitecture design, proprietary instruction set execution, accelerators, and decoders, and then we get into things like cache layout, amount, and speed, in addition to ram speed and timings. It is dizzying to say the least, but unfortunately IL-2 (in vr) still does not run without a hitch on ANY current system because of the game engine. Your ryzen is a great cpu though and should do nearly as well as any.

[Gambit21]

13 hours ago, dbzero said:

 I would think my 5950X and 3080 with 32 gigs of ram wouldn't be too bad for video editing if I wanted to get into that.

 

Considering people have been editing videos long before your Ryzen and not doing too badly, yeah I would think so.

 

I was doing heavy duty 3D rendering on my i5 2500k, then with my 1700x, and now my 5800x would do just fine as well if I was still into that.

[dbzero]

10 hours ago, =AW=drewm3i-VR said:

If only it were this simple...yes clock speed matters, but IPC (instructions per clock) matters even more. Not to mention microarchitecture design, proprietary instruction set execution, accelerators, and decoders, and then we get into things like cache layout, amount, and speed, in addition to ram speed and timings. It is dizzying to say the least, but unfortunately IL-2 (in vr) still does not run without a hitch on ANY current system because of the game engine. Your ryzen is a great cpu though and should do nearly as well as any.

I have a VR set and tried IL2 a while back. Never experienced any issues, but didn’t really play extensively so I missed the pauses and other issues associated with VR.

 

I now play exclusively with monitors. That’s why I was interested in the 49 inch Samsung beast of a monitor as those who used with Flightsim2020 said it’s was pretty close to a VR experience.

 

 

[Sokol1]

MSFS2020 tested with 4 to 16 cores.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrnvVOiZ6N0

 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

8 hours ago, Sokol1 said:

MSFS2020 tested with 4 to 16 cores.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrnvVOiZ6N0

 

Interesting, but I do not think we would see the same results in il-2. I think more than 8 cores is likely overkill.

[BladeMeister]

I think the point is that 6 or 8 cores are just as capable as the higher core chips. What's 3 or 4 FPS when you have to shell out so much more money just to get it. Again, IPC is where it is at and I will stick with my AMD Ryzen 5 5600x for 300$ thank you very much. I am more than happy with its' performance, low power usage and cool temperatures with my Noctua cooling fan setup. I put the money I saved into Samsung 980 Pro M.2 drives and an awesome Samsung G7 34" monitor. 

 

S!Blade<><

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

1 hour ago, BladeMeister said:

I think the point is that 6 or 8 cores are just as capable as the higher core chips. What's 3 or 4 FPS when you have to shell out so much more money just to get it. Again, IPC is where it is at and I will stick with my AMD Ryzen 5 5600x for 300$ thank you very much. I am more than happy with its' performance, low power usage and cool temperatures with my Noctua cooling fan setup. I put the money I saved into Samsung 980 Pro M.2 drives and an awesome Samsung G7 34" monitor. 

 

S!Blade<><

You are right for sure. I think the reason the higher core chip has better performance is probably due to better node bin quality more than anything else...the higher core chips usually get the premium yields.

 

Ryzen is great for sure, but so is the new intel tiger lake (slightly better single core performance than ryzen desktop at only 45w+ tdp ?.)