Upgraded to i9 9900K from i7 8700K and can see no difference in VR

[imacken]

So, I upgraded tday from a i7 8700K to a i9 9900K, hoping to see a better fps or something in DCS! Well, after an hour or two, I can see no difference in fps or frame times for scenarios I am very familiar with.

See attached from Task Manager. The CPU is doing nothing, yet the fps/frame time is still the same as it was before.

Now, I listened to many people talking about DCS being CPU bound, but I'm struggling to see that is the case!

I asked in another thread the other day, but didn't get a reply to this question. Are there settings in DCS that are more CPU reliant than GPU that I could turn up to make use of this beast of a processor?

[Rudel_chw]

The single core performance Of the 9900k is only 7% higher than the 8700k .. it has 8 cores instead of 6, but that, to dcs, makes no difference.

[dburne]

Disable Hyper Threading in bios.

Overclock all cores gradually, shoot for 5.0 or 5.1 GHz. It will need a little more vcore so keep an eye on temps. I use Intel Extreme Tuning Utility for stress testing and watching core temps.

With a good cooler should be able to get it there with no AVX offset which will keep all cores consistent on the overclock.

[imacken]

Thanks guys. Although I used to believe that DCS basically only uses one core, recent posts have shot me down on this, suggesting that for some time all cores are available to apps and games.

 

Don, sure, I could overclock more, I only set it to 4.8GHz to get me going. However, I could have done the same with my 8700, i.e. got it up to 5.0 or 5.1 from my 4.8. What I was expecting, was that the 9900 would have more basic grunt.

 

My question still stands. The CPU is hardly being used, so I wonder what DCS settings could be bumped up that use the CPU rather than the GPU. Also, my do so many people state that DCS is CPU constrained?

 

I use the Corsair H100i V2 cooler.

[flameoutme]

I can't remember the exact numbers, but I have run fpsVR on my new I-9900 which has a lower end 1080 card, and am surprised at hour leisurely the CPU chugs along. On my system, its the 1080 card (8 Gig card, non-ti) that is the bottleneck in VR.

[Nagilem]

@imacken - you would think with all that processing speed left you could do just that; go harder on the CPU. The other day I did some testing with a mission with over 500 objects and a lot going on. With all of those objects starting to interact, my DCS came to a crawl, but you know where the processor was? Not even 20% utilized. The GPU wasn't over stressed either - sitting around 70% or less. Looking at one mig 29 with no other planes or shooting going on was a slideshow. Memory on both the CPU and VPU was not full either.

 

I think we are rapidly approaching the time when multithread multi core optimizations will be REQUIRED.

[imacken]

Thanks guys. Yes, this is a crazy situation. I mean we throw thousands of £££s at it, and still we can't get an improvement in DCS VR performance.

I'm chucking everything at it, and the CPU hardly gets used, the GPU is near maxed out, and still I'm getting 16-20ms frame time!

[Nagilem]

For your reading pleasure -

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=242929

 

This is the thread about CPU usage in testing with a large and very complex mission. Screen shots with my performance on page 2

[imacken]

For your reading pleasure -

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=242929

 

This is the thread about CPU usage in testing with a large and very complex mission. Screen shots with my performance on page 2

 

Very interesting. I mean, I can't do anything in that missions at all!

[dawgie79]

It's because hardware only does so much. Hardware, OS, software, all need to be in harmony to get the maximum out of your system.

 

The problem isn't hardware, it's because DCS isn't optimally optimized. Only thing you can do is make sure your system is configured optimally. I've explained a few times already on these forums: hardware is approx. 33%, OS optimization is approx. 33%, resource management on your system is approx. 33%. What's left is that you/we are dependent on what the developers do.

 

Paying attention to only one of these won't give you more performance.

Edited June 21, 2019 by dawgie79

[imacken]

Well, we are continually bombarded with posts about DCS being CPU bound, or GPU bound, etc., but when it comes down to it with decent hardware, it is neither. The CPU usage (overall and single thread) bar in fpsVR never moves out of the green!

[dawgie79]

Well, we are continually bombarded with posts about DCS being CPU bound, or GPU bound, etc., but when it comes down to it with decent hardware, it is neither. The CPU usage (overall and single thread) bar in fpsVR never moves out of the green!

Of course not, I'm sorry. It's DCS itself, no matter what hardware you throw at it in this point in time. Until ED optimizes their EDGE engine, or introduce Vulkan or something, things won't likely change anytime soon. Sure, with the hardware you have you may well be getting a few more FPS than I'm getting (i7 8700 non-K GTX1080 non-OC), but I bet it won't be that much which justifies (with all due respect of course for your personal choices :) ) the enormous amount in price your hardware costs over mine.

 

In the meantime my recommendation is focussing on optimizing your system, i.e. Windows and it's services, the background apps, startup apps, and so on.

[Strong05]

I thought the only difference between the i8 and i9 was a soldered lid? If that's the case the only thing you picked up was additional cores and higher OC headway. DCS is still hugely clock dependent so OC the heck out of that thing.

 

Are you talking 20% overall CPU usage or are you looking at each core?

[hansangb]

Thanks guys. Yes, this is a crazy situation. I mean we throw thousands of £££s at it, and still we can't get an improvement in DCS VR performance.

I'm chucking everything at it, and the CPU hardly gets used, the GPU is near maxed out, and still I'm getting 16-20ms frame time!

 

 

Can you pick an instant mission to test? And post FPS? I'm getting 80-90 consistently with my 8700K. If you post what instant mission/map you're using, we can compare.

[imacken]

Are you talking 20% overall CPU usage or are you looking at each core?

Both show in fpsVR.

 

Can you pick an instant mission to test? And post FPS? I'm getting 80-90 consistently with my 8700K. If you post what instant mission/map you're using, we can compare.

Thanks but we've gone through this in other threads, and it's almost impossible to compare with different settings, SS, HMDs, etc.

Still, if we take Wags' test mission, i.e. flight over Tbilisi, then I get between 16 and 18ms frame time at first, then dropping to 20-22ms if I dive towards the city when over it. It's pointless me quoting fps as I am on 45fps almost regardless of what else is going on! (There is another thread on this very subject, amd yes, I have motion smoothing switched off for this test.)

If I drop out MSAA, and all shadows, then I go to 12ms at start and 14-15ms over Tbilisi.

However, my point is that I am not seeing any improvement after spending £500 on this 9900K compared to my 8700K!

[boedha68]

Both show in fpsVR.

 

 

Thanks but we've gone through this in other threads, and it's almost impossible to compare with different settings, SS, HMDs, etc.

Still, if we take Wags' test mission, i.e. flight over Tbilisi, then I get between 16 and 18ms frame time at first, then dropping to 20-22ms if I dive towards the city when over it. It's pointless me quoting fps as I am on 45fps almost regardless of what else is going on! (There is another thread on this very subject, amd yes, I have motion smoothing switched off for this test.)

If I drop out MSAA, and all shadows, then I go to 12ms at start and 14-15ms over Tbilisi.

However, my point is that I am not seeing any improvement after spending £500 on this 9900K compared to my 8700K!

 

What a deception! I was thinking about building a new rig, but i think now waiting till there is a real boost of hardware on the market! :D

[imacken]

What a deception! I was thinking about building a new rig, but i think now waiting till there is a real boost of hardware on the market! :D

But, as we are discussing, it's not the hardware. There is a massive amount of headroom, that is just not being used by DCS.

[boedha68]

I know when i clocked my CPU core to 4.3 from 3.9 it made a big fps boost for me. Like Don said, push it to 5.1 GHz. He’s the crack with a similair system that you have. :D

[imacken]

I know when i clocked my CPU core to 4.3 from 3.9 it made a big fps boost for me. Like Don said, push it to 5.1 GHz. He’s the crack with a similair system that you have. :D

Yes, sure, I'll do that, but my point still is that I could have done a bit more O/C on my 8700K to achieve probably the same improvement.

It's one of these things, isn't it? we all look forward to new kit, and somehow spending £500 for - apparently - no benefit isn't sitting well with me at the moment.

I'm probably going to return it if I don't see any benefit over the weekend.

[Sniper175]

Well sorry to say but that was a waste of money. Like others say your minimums for ghz should be 5ghz. Going from 8700k to that ouch not worth it.

[slipstream21]

So what happened to the 50 percent improvement that Waggs promised a few months ago? Have I missed something? Was it bollocks?

[imacken]

So what happened to the 50 percent improvement that Waggs promised a few months ago? Have I missed something? Was it bollocks?

 

And that is relevant to this thread in what way?

[toutenglisse]

... The CPU is hardly being used, so I wonder what DCS settings could be bumped up that use the CPU rather than the GPU...

 

I can't join the points (not you, in general) : DCS hardly use cpu / DCS is cpu or gpu bound / or DCS isn't optimized and just don't use hardware. When said without context (what usage what settings).

 

Just an illustration of this, using the TF-51D instant free flight Tiblisi in VR, flying 30 seconds looking forward. (the VR test)

I use afterburner to monitore %gpu, fps, %all 4 cores (HT off) with a resolution of 100ms.

 

1st picture is ASW on, like I always play, with my usual settings (1.4PD, 2X AA, medium visibility and high shadows, for the most importants)

Around 30% cpu usage, 60% gpu.

 

2nd picture is ASW off (it works for me with RCtrl+Num1)… system renders as much fps as it can until it can reach 90.

100% usage on 4 cores 70% of the time, 100% gpu. 70-80 fps. (limiter is gpu, as it's at 100% all the time, by opposite to 70% of time for cpu)

 

[ATTACH]212453[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]212454[/ATTACH]

 

DCS uses it. I'm certain. With usual and more comfortable settings (ASW on) it has headroom but it's a good thing for action.

But optimizations are always welcome of course.

[Wolf8312]

I used to overclock to 5 ghz. But after a while, being honest with myself, I couldn't really see the difference. I once didn't even realize I was not OC'd!

 

I think if you are still in any form of reprojection, or flipping in and out of 90, it's probably not going to make too much of a difference.

 

I sometimes think its best not to hit 90 at all, than to go from 90 and back to reprojection continuosly, as this tends to be more noticible, flicking in and out of a flawless or alternatively degraded performance.

 

You might get better FPS but I think the only two FPS values that really mean anything with VR are 90 and 45, and if you cant stay above the former it's best to stay in between both at all times. If a new GPU/CPU is not reported to able to acheive this I'll probably not be upgrading.

 

 

That said extra CPU/GPU horse power might be useful in combination with some of the newer more demanding headsets to put me basically back where I am already performance wise, but with better graphics? But I too am hesitant on this question.

 

 

It seems counter intuitive to assume it would work like this. If as the OP has discovered a greater CPU does not entail greater performance, could giving the same CPU yet more work to do ever mean, that this CPU would suddenly be better utilized, than a CPU that wasn't being properly utilized to begin with?

 

Maybe I just don't understand how it all works though.

 

I would say for anyone thinking of upgrading don't get hopes too high, because for as long as we cannot get above 90 constantly, the margins are going to be very fine indeed.

[hansangb]

Yes, sure, I'll do that, but my point still is that I could have done a bit more O/C on my 8700K to achieve probably the same improvement.

It's one of these things, isn't it? we all look forward to new kit, and somehow spending £500 for - apparently - no benefit isn't sitting well with me at the moment.

I'm probably going to return it if I don't see any benefit over the weekend.

 

 

On the PC Hardware thread, it gets discussed weekly. DCS today is bound by single core performance. So GHz is king (although incremental upgrade to 9900 helps).