Vega 64 vs 2080TI

[WelshZeCorgi]

Obviously, 2080TI out performs Vega 64, but I'm just wondering if that difference is worth the extra cash nessesary for a better experience with DCS.

 

I brought the Vega 64 and it certainly kicks the crap out of my old card, which struggled to even play normal graphics at a consistent 30fps, but the casual framedrops and strain under object heavy missions gives me that itch for more power. I feel like I'm so close to having the best experience possible if I just shell out a bit more cash.

 

So, sort of torn on the idea of returning the Vega 64 for a 2080TI, what is the community's thoughts on the performance of the 2080Ti in dcs? Worth the money or stick to the 64?

Edited November 25, 2018 by WelshZeCorgi

[Headwarp]

This largely depends on what kind of resolution you're playing on or whether or not you're running VR. As well as your CPU frequencies.

[WelshZeCorgi]

1080 or 1440 resolution, I'm hoping to play VR eventually, given all the praise it's been getting, but currently not now. CPU is the fx-9590 at 4.7. Heard it can reach 5.0 oced. But I'd have to buy a 1000w psu to do that.

[Headwarp]

even at 5ghz on the newest intel chips you'd likely be cpu limited in DCS up to1440p resolution without supersampling (SSAA in DCS settings) to near 4k resolutions which has it's own effects on performance using anything equal to or more powerful than a 1080Ti.

 

In VR, even with a 2080Ti it's not possible to maintain 90fps if you want readable guages and text, although it's getting closer over at least the nevada map. So - 45fps for reprojection is the goal for now, and the 1080Ti likely offers a similar VR experience to the 2080Ti in DCS with less compromises in settings than say a 1070 or 1080. Still, VRAM usage can get up there in VR so having more than 8gb could be nice.

 

 

^^ 2070, vega 64, 1080 benchmarks @ 1440p.

 

 

^^ will at least give you an idea how the 2070 performs vs the higher tier and give you an idea of what might happen in DCS. The minimal gains in 2080Ti performance over 2080 performance @ 1440p are likely due to a cpu bottleneck, and that's an 8700k @ 5ghz.

 

This mostly applies to dx11 titles which are for the most part largely single threaded. Vulkan and DX12 titles seem to put hardware to work.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Headwarp

[Jumbik]

Objectively, 2080ti will be always better performer than Vega 64, but for what price? :)

 

I would wait for any "final" judgement for the VULKAN implementation in DCS (hopefully soon) as that should change things a bit.

 

I'm playing DCS with Vega 64, no problems on my end in 1440p. No VR though.

[WelshZeCorgi]

Objectively, 2080ti will be always better performer than Vega 64, but for what price? :)

 

I would wait for any "final" judgement for the VULKAN implementation in DCS (hopefully soon) as that should change things a bit.

 

I'm playing DCS with Vega 64, no problems on my end in 1440p. No VR though.

 

 

May I ask what graphics settings you're using?

 

Also, I thought that VULKAN was just a rumor?

[Jumbik]

May I ask what graphics settings you're using?

 

Also, I thought that VULKAN was just a rumor?

 

It is not a rumor, it's confirmed by ED. :)

 

I'm playing with most of the settings on high/ultra, preload on max. etc. I did not have to sacrifice much. I do see dips down to 30fps in very dense missions but only at the ground, never in flight.

 

But mostly Freesync is helping a lot to keep things smooth.

[Jumbik]

Here is the official announcement: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3338291&postcount=123

 

I believe there was more talk about it, that it is done, but they have to convert all shaders for vulkan before it will be usable.

 

Anyway for DCS, I have found one HUGE thing that helps performance on my system. For some reason the full screen option marker in options does not work properly. I have to press ALT+ENTER when I enter any mission to get proper Full screen, this alone pretty much doubles my FPS in DCS.

 

My screen is 75hz one, I'm capped on 75fps in 1440p while flying. It oscillates between 60-75 when looking at the ground.

 

Here are my settings:

 

https://imgur.com/a/U5how8b

[WelshZeCorgi]

Here is the official announcement: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3338291&postcount=123

 

I believe there was more talk about it, that it is done, but they have to convert all shaders for vulkan before it will be usable.

 

Anyway for DCS, I have found one HUGE thing that helps performance on my system. For some reason the full screen option marker in options does not work properly. I have to press ALT+ENTER when I enter any mission to get proper Full screen, this alone pretty much doubles my FPS in DCS.

 

My screen is 75hz one, I'm capped on 75fps in 1440p while flying. It oscillates between 60-75 when looking at the ground.

 

Here are my settings:

 

https://imgur.com/a/U5how8b

 

That's great news about Vulkan, I just heard grapevine talk from the other forum members.

 

What are your specs? I can't seem to get the performance you're getting. Is it possible I'm getting bottlenecked with the AMD FX-9590? I managed to overclock it to get it up to 5.33ghz but I'm getting more around 30-35 fps (and the trackIR 5 slashes the fps by about 10fps everytime I move my head around)

Also, I bought a Formula V Asus motherboard for the AMD processor but it didn't come with the CD with all the drivers and stuff on it. I tried downloading it from ASUS website, but some of the drivers can't be unzipped for some reason.

[WelshZeCorgi]

Here is the official announcement: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3338291&postcount=123

 

I believe there was more talk about it, that it is done, but they have to convert all shaders for vulkan before it will be usable.

 

Anyway for DCS, I have found one HUGE thing that helps performance on my system. For some reason the full screen option marker in options does not work properly. I have to press ALT+ENTER when I enter any mission to get proper Full screen, this alone pretty much doubles my FPS in DCS.

 

My screen is 75hz one, I'm capped on 75fps in 1440p while flying. It oscillates between 60-75 when looking at the ground.

 

Here are my settings:

 

https://imgur.com/a/U5how8b

 

That's great news about Vulkan, I just heard grapevine talk from the other forum members.

 

What are your specs? I can't seem to get the performance you're getting. Is it possible I'm getting bottlenecked with the AMD FX-9590? I managed to overclock it to get it up to 5.33ghz but I'm getting more around 30-35 fps (and the trackIR 5 slashes the fps by about 10fps everytime I move my head around)

Also, I bought a Formula V Asus motherboard for the AMD processor but it didn't come with the CD with all the drivers and stuff on it. I tried downloading it from ASUS website, but some of the drivers can't be unzipped for some reason.

[boscoh]

1080 or 1440 resolution, I'm hoping to play VR eventually, given all the praise it's been getting, but currently not now. CPU is the fx-9590 at 4.7. Heard it can reach 5.0 oced. But I'd have to buy a 1000w psu to do that.

 

 

You don't need a 2080ti for either of those resolutions if you're not doing VR and the extra horsepower would be largely wasted as performance will be heavily CPU dependent, and I don't think yours would push enough to make an 2080ti worth the investment.

 

1080ti and 2080 are faster than Vega 64 in most scenarios.

 

If Vega 64 and 2080 are equally priced (and they are, or very close depending on exact models), the 2080 will likely get you a little more bang for the buck and future proof you for if/when ray tracing takes off.

 

If you're happy with what you have, stick with it. If you want to change I'd look for a 1080ti or 2080 (non ti).

[pacotito]

That's great news about Vulkan, I just heard grapevine talk from the other forum members.

 

What are your specs? I can't seem to get the performance you're getting. Is it possible I'm getting bottlenecked with the AMD FX-9590? I managed to overclock it to get it up to 5.33ghz but I'm getting more around 30-35 fps (and the trackIR 5 slashes the fps by about 10fps everytime I move my head around)

Also, I bought a Formula V Asus motherboard for the AMD processor but it didn't come with the CD with all the drivers and stuff on it. I tried downloading it from ASUS website, but some of the drivers can't be unzipped for some reason.

 

 

Monitor cpu and gpu usage. If your gpu isnt close to 100% usage youre bottleneck is the cpu. I think DCS still only uses 2 cpu cores I could be wrong. SO depending how many cores you have cpu usage will vary since its all cores. Youd have to look at the individual cores and see if they are maxed.

[Jumbik]

That's great news about Vulkan, I just heard grapevine talk from the other forum members.

 

What are your specs? I can't seem to get the performance you're getting. Is it possible I'm getting bottlenecked with the AMD FX-9590? I managed to overclock it to get it up to 5.33ghz but I'm getting more around 30-35 fps (and the trackIR 5 slashes the fps by about 10fps everytime I move my head around)

Also, I bought a Formula V Asus motherboard for the AMD processor but it didn't come with the CD with all the drivers and stuff on it. I tried downloading it from ASUS website, but some of the drivers can't be unzipped for some reason.

Looking at your CPU, yes, it is most probably your problem here. CPUs based on Buldozzer cores were not so good. Effectively they are 50% behind in IPC of curent ones even though they can clock higher.

 

In your case, buying better gpu will not help much. You will be better with new cpu.

 

Both AMD and Intel are comparable today. Intel still has a slight edge in DCS if you go pure high end though.

 

With AMD you should be looking at the new Ryzens (1600/2600x, 1700/2700x). With Intel any high cloking i5 or i7.

 

My specs are i7 4790k 4.4Ghz, 16GB RAM, Vega64.

 

I will be upgrading next year to the new AMD ryzen platform.