18/25% CPU usage in VR / 4k and 1080p with a i7 4790K + 980Ti ?!! Is it normal ?!

[CoolSpy]

Well, I am quite shocked to see that my i7 is only used at 18/25% of it's power in VR (HTC VIVE), or monitor display in 4k or 1080p resolution too!!

 

The worst is in VR and I also get around 80% of GPU utilization! I run Windows 10 64 bits and latest nVidia Drivers with a 980Ti graphics card.

 

So I get around 45 fps in VR (with async repro and it looks bad), 90 fps in 4K which is fine, and 135fps in 1080p. This is with high settings enabled and running Nevada F86 intercept quick mission. If I lower the graphics to the minimum the perfs are not much higher!

 

So I am not sure is this is normal to see such poor performance / cpu/gpu usage or if i am the only one experiencing that.

 

Thanks in advance for your feedback, folks!

[Art-J]

Kind of normal. DCS uses only one CPU core for most of calculations and a bit of second one for sound processing. It's a bit similar to ARMA 3 in this regard. Not sure if up to 25% is correct (I use i5k), but You will never see high overall CPU usage for that reason.

 

GPU - which version of the game are You talking about? 1.5.x doesn't utilize GPUs very well, so about 80% sounds not bad at all. On my card I get 60%! Version 2.0 is all different, though, much better rendering engine, runs my card at 100% all the time and should do the same on Yours.

[CoolSpy]

I tried both versions and there is not much difference. I was talking about the 2.0 concerning this thread! In VR I got 80% GPU usage and in monitor display I had around 95/100%

[MikeMikeJuliet]

Yeah, similar issues have been reported. many times in the last 6 months. Now, I don't wonder at all about overall CPU-usage, but I've heared that even the single core doing the calculations rarely get good usage-marks in DCS, which is really strange.

 

I mean, if you still have power on the part that is your bottleneck, then... why isn't it used to the max before frames start dropping...?

 

The only thing you can do that might help, is to overclock the heck out of your CPU, so that the miniscule performance it gives to DCS would be as much as possible.

 

 

You can find at least a couple of these threads on the "hardware" section of the forums.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

[CoolSpy]

The DCS engine is even worth than ArmA engine then.... I thought 2.0 would bring huge perf boosts!

[Art-J]

Let's wait for 980 and VR users to share their experiences then (I'm especially curious about drivers being used, as I remember many guys reporting 37x.x series being Fubar'ed for Win10 and rolling back to 368.x to get better performance). Or You can search through hardware section of the forum for some additional clues.

[CoolSpy]

I can confirm that for me 368.X are much better in iRacing for example! 37X.X have terrible perfs with it. Maybe it's the same with DCS world, I'll try to switch then!

[CoolSpy]

Just tried with the 368.X no difference in DCS world and no more ASYNC REPRO available of course

[Worrazen]

It's not DX12 or Vulkan, so Multi Core CPU isn't going to be used much in terms of graphics code.

 

But then it also depends on the engine it self how much it supports multi core. It's also not exacly a modern engine, doesn't compare to Unreal 4 at all.

 

 

I have a new monitor on the way, higher resolution, I'm not going to have 50-80 FPS anymore. More like 40-60, this engine is slowly getting to a point where it may be more than just a side issue, everyone's just going to start waiting for performance fixes even if sweet new content would come out, might be better to just shut everything down for six months and focus on performance and then get back to content.

 

I can't upgrade a CPU anymore, it's pointless going from Sandy to Ivy Bridge, not much of an improvement for the money delta, I would have to replace the motherboard to go for any better CPU, that means almost a whole new PC and a lot of tinkering with windows to make it carry over to the new mobo(a lot of registry cleaning) since I'm don't feel like reinstalling this beast and spending tinkering for another year.

 

No budget at all.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Worrazen

[BitMaster]

There is no real need to replace a SandyBridge -K CPU.

 

If my damn mobo was still alive I'd still be running my 2600k @ 4.8GHz and smoke many other CPU's of newer gen. ;)

 

Sadly, the board gave up and I eneded up with rig in sig, arriving hopefully today.

 

I do NOT expect it to run any faster than my Sandy did. The CPU and DDR4 alone wont fix it, the rest is the same as old rig ( GPU SSD etc.. )

[hansangb]

There is no real need to replace a SandyBridge -K CPU.

 

If my damn mobo was still alive I'd still be running my 2600k @ 4.8GHz and smoke many other CPU's of newer gen. ;)

 

Sadly, the board gave up and I eneded up with rig in sig, arriving hopefully today.

 

I do NOT expect it to run any faster than my Sandy did. The CPU and DDR4 alone wont fix it, the rest is the same as old rig ( GPU SSD etc.. )

 

You were happy when it broke, because deep down inside, you wanted the latest. Just admitted! :D Like how I pray my LED will break so I can have an excuse to buy the OLED TV. LOL

 

/* I'm joking, in case there are humor-impaired folks reading */