RIFT: GPU Question

[Krupi]

I have been running DCS with a 780 now for 3.5 years and 2.1 has finally killed my FPS, I could wait for performance improvements or upgrade...

 

If I was to upgrade what should I look at a 1070, 1080 or a 1080 TI?

 

Or wait for the next gen GPU.

 

The rest of my specs are in my signature :)

 

Thanks,

Krupi

Edited June 5, 2017 by Krupi

[_schepper_]

I run a 1080gtx gaming x+ its a overclocked 1080 i think 20 more than normal 1080 but test on non 4k are fps between normal 1080 and 1080ti so for me that whas my price vs performance best for my vr setup. I got i72600 clockt to 4.6ghz and 16g ram at 1600.

 

vr on 2.1 i can run deferent shader at on because at navada it is really nice :)

and anti alising at 2x and almost most settings to low exept texture an visibility range i have not on low

 

Most of time i tested whit f5 and mirage and huey on navada and spitfire on normandy and most of time i keep above 45fps. Just above vegas i drop to 35fps for me im have really no problems whit sicness so i am happy,

 

Hope i can help you whit the info and if you like i can post my settings tomorow, for exact settings,

Now i gonna sleep :)

I olso run before an 780 gtx and happy whit my new gpu :) (speaking at oculus vr rift settings here)

 

Greats koen

 

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-J510FN met Tapatalk

[Krupi]

Thanks for the heads up Schepper, sounds good :)

[pagadi-zaiet]

2.1 ruined the VR experience! ... poor frames, stutter and odd visuals!

I do have a 1080Ti, will not make much difference!

[_schepper_]

2.1 ruined the VR experience! ... poor frames, stutter and odd visuals!

I do have a 1080Ti, will not make much difference!

There are indeed still some problems for vr on 2.1, but 2.1 is still verry early and i think they will be solved :) for me it whas playable,

Only tested for 2 evenings

 

 

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-J510FN met Tapatalk

[dburne]

If I were in the market for a new GPU today and had the Rift in mind, I would go 1080 Ti without hesitation.

[Krupi]

I would buy a 1080TI, if I could find one that didn't melt my face when I see the price...

[nrgized]

One thing rarely mentioned about the difference between the 1080 and the 1080ti is the lows when it comes to fps.

 

The 1080ti while it does offer an fps boost, its main feature is how it steadies out the lows and helps with keeping them smooth.

[VampireNZ]

1080ti is the obvious choice if it is in your price range, purely for the grunt in other games.

 

Don't expect to utilise the GPU power in DCS thou - I have never even got close to full utilisation of the GPU in DCS (still get stutters, ASW to 45 etc), something to do with the coding or some-such. Apparently even the newly-release Star Trek:Bridge Cmd moved graphics calcs to the CPU - weird!...so no good there either lol.

 

1080ti dominates in other 'normal' games thou!

[Krupi]

Well I really only play DCS nowadays

[VampireNZ]

Well I really only play DCS nowadays

 

I would save your money then, DCS can't max out a 1080ti with its current programming architecture.

[_schepper_]

I had the same problem as you, and a friend of my told me....

Bying now a 1080ti is price vs performance to mutch 1080 was 620euro and 1080ti 900euro... he sead to me by now a 1080 and save that money for the next gen vr headset because probebly thats gonna be more demanding, and than next gen gpu are there probebly mutch more powerfull then.

At that thime i desidet to buy just the 1080 ...because ti is for me to expencife... the overclocked versions of 1080 came out whit better preformance and no mutch more money...

Dcs is what i read btw more demanding on cpu,

if cpu is slow the gpu wil not give that more performance if i understand correctly :)

Thats why i upgraded my cpu to from a (3.8ghz oc i5 2500 non k) to a (4.6ghz i7 2600k) and learnd how to overclock it at that way i spendet 640euro for 1080 gaming x+ and 100euro risc for a used i7 2600 that runs smooth :)

And vr runs verry good mostly at 45fps even at 2.1 for the tests i dit.

 

That whas for me price performance the best way to get the most out of my system.

 

 

 

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-J510FN met Tapatalk

[NeilWillis]

2.1 ruined the VR experience! ... poor frames, stutter and odd visuals!

I do have a 1080Ti, will not make much difference!

 

Utter rubbish. If you read the information out there, you can soon get your frame rates back up to a respectable level. Having the highest spec hardware always helps, and to the OP, I'd say buy the very best of everything you can afford. It may not be working flat out initially, but over time, you'll be glad you invested wisely. The other side of the coin of course is that the high spec stuff is always vastly over priced, so another approach is to buy the best cheapest hardware. You'll replace it more often, but you may well, on balance, get far better value for money. A 980 Ti for example will give excellent performance if you set up the system to maximise it's potential, and it'll be considerably better value for money that the latest hardware - the 1080 Ti.

 

The bottom line with DCS is that you need to be prepared to put some effort and time into maximising performance. There are a lot of parameters to tweak, and the goalposts are constantly moving, but I get a good solid 45 frames and often much better on a 980 Ti, but some people who expect the world handed to them on a plate will struggle with a 1080 because they simply don't follow the advice of the learned among us (not me I hasten to add).

 

For example, it took just a few hours for someone to point out the problems with deferred shading combined with in-game settings for anti aliasing etc. Keep a finger on the pulse of the forum, and you will yield huge returns.

[_schepper_]

Utter rubbish. If you read the information out there, you can soon get your frame rates back up to a respectable level. Having the highest spec hardware always helps, and to the OP, I'd say buy the very best of everything you can afford. It may not be working flat out initially, but over time, you'll be glad you invested wisely. The other side of the coin of course is that the high spec stuff is always vastly over priced, so another approach is to buy the best cheapest hardware. You'll replace it more often, but you may well, on balance, get far better value for money. A 980 Ti for example will give excellent performance if you set up the system to maximise it's potential, and it'll be considerably better value for money that the latest hardware - the 1080 Ti.

 

The bottom line with DCS is that you need to be prepared to put some effort and time into maximising performance. There are a lot of parameters to tweak, and the goalposts are constantly moving, but I get a good solid 45 frames and often much better on a 980 Ti, but some people who expect the world handed to them on a plate will struggle with a 1080 because they simply don't follow the advice of the learned among us (not me I hasten to add).

 

For example, it took just a few hours for someone to point out the problems with deferred shading combined with in-game settings for anti aliasing etc. Keep a finger on the pulse of the forum, and you will yield huge returns.

Thats right :)

Spending time on reading and searching for good valeur is nesesey, and testing.

I am glad i enjoy doing that.

 

 

 

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-J510FN met Tapatalk

[Cibit]

@Opening post. I find that even though my CPU is not as fast and powerful as yours it serves very well with the 1080 GTX. The Ti version is a bit overkill for DCS in value for money terms, as the 1080 GTX gives 45 fps steady with most settings high with shadows flat and ground shadows default. Well worth the money I payed and perfect for DCS and other games:)

[Burnhard]

On CV1 - I went from the 1080 and i5-2500K@ 4.3ghz and 16gb 1866 mhz ram to 1080TI and i7-7700k @ 4.8ghz and 16 gb 3866 mhz ram, not much of a difference tbh.

No direct numbers to speak for it, but the experience is basically the same. But what I do believe has a major impact is having DCS on a SSD. :)

[Burnhard]

Yeah and btw, i ONLY play DCS. That's the only thing the PC is used for. A bit of a bummer that upgrade. 3 times the price, 15 percent framerate increase maybe. (Idk exactly)

[toutenglisse]

I would save your money then, DCS can't max out a 1080ti with its current programming architecture.

 

?? I don't see that .... My gpu has a near max load when rendering 90fps and when it can't achieve 90fps the ASW limit the gpu to 45fps output and the load is around 50%.

So my 1080Ti is absolutely not overkill ^^ twice if supported wouldn't be ... Or I don't see the point ?

[toutenglisse]

Here is a screenshot with afterburner of a Rift play in DCS 2.1 Nttr some minutes ago.

(A10A CAS SP custom mission - pixel density 1.5 - settings high - shaders/Lightning OFF - 4x AA and 4x AF)

As you can see GPU load is max when able to render 90fps and over, and near 50% when ASW limit gpu rendered fps to 45. My 1080Ti is not big enough for DCS ....

[dburne]

As you can see GPU load is max when able to render 90fps and over, and near 50% when ASW limit gpu rendered fps to 45. My 1080Ti is not big enough for DCS ....

 

Yes but isn't that the premise of ASW?

When running full out - non ASW ( 90 fps and above), the GPU would be utilized as full as can to maintain this performance and fps.

But, when they drop much below 90 fps, then ASW kicks in and lowers the framerates to 45 fps, interpolating the missing frames to equate to an end result of 90 fps for the Rift display.

Therefore with the lowering of the fps to 45, the GPU is not needed as much as when running all out at 90 fps and above.

 

Perhaps a simplistic observation, just something that came to mind...

[toutenglisse]

Exactly Dburne. that's why, if he always is at 45fps ASW on, VampireNZ doesn't see his GPU being fully loaded.

Here an afterburner screenshot of an other Rift play in DCS 1.5.6 just done.

(A10A CAS SP custom mission, pixel density 1.5 - settings ultra - 16xQ AA and 16x AF) Some diffenrences but gpu near fully loaded when rendering 90fps