carmelid Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 (edited) Hi Folks Lets take a mission such as "Battle.miz" as a reference. Why this one? because this mission is rather loaded with objects and ground activity, resembling a real scenario you might encounter as a real attack heli pilot during a small-scale war. Sure, it's fun to hunt a 8 truck convoy protected by 2 SAM units, but IMHO, those kind of missions are too sterile, and not interesting enough. So you got the idea, I am looking for a system who can handle this sim in battles consisting of tens of objects, just like I can in IL-2 now for example. As a reference, on my rig, (E2180@3200, GT8800, 2Gb ram) on low setting, 1024x768 resolution, the frame rate goes down to 10fps in this mission when the Artillery starts rocking. This makes the mission virtually unplayable. the average when starting the mission is 20-25fps. I wonder if the E8500 CPU (which might by safely OCed to 4200) can handle such a mission "properly"... My very subjective "properly", means the very min frame rate > 20fps, avg frame rate >30fps at medium setting, High scenery, 1280x1024. If that's the case I would seruisly consider getting one of those CPUs Thanks ahead David Edited December 21, 2008 by carmelid
Francous Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 E8400 cheaper and great performance. E8500/E8400 safely run at 3.8 and both will be much better than E2180 no doubt
crazysundog Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 (edited) Hey david, I'm willing to do a test for you on my E8500 today...got nothing better to do and would like to check out how far i can push the cpu anyway... Just so you know, i've currently got my E8500 OC'd to 3.4ghz, with stock fan, and I hope to add an OCZ Vendetta 2 in a couple weeks, so I should be able to update the test in this thread! I will try for 4.0, maybe 4.2 down the road. Will post more in a while... Oh, and this thread will be moved to tech section in ...3......2.......1....... p.s. The E8400 is only $25 cheaper, and for the extra 1.6ghz, you definately want the E8500....I regret not spending the extra $90 on the E8600. Edited December 21, 2008 by crazysundog
carmelid Posted December 21, 2008 Author Posted December 21, 2008 Thanks crazysundog The OC's boards report nice overclocking results with this CPU. However, it is really interesting to now how do the MHz's translate into "realworld" FPS... Looking forward your impressions from the Battle.miz mission :-) Have fun!
crazysundog Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 (edited) Argghh, i have the russian version, and i cannot find the Battle.miz... will translate and find it in a minute. I cant wait to push this cpu to 4.0ghz!! I have the HDR mod installed with this game, which takes away approx. 8-10 fps, so I would really like to gain that back!! Edit: cannot find the battle.miz you refer to....Will use my own. Edited December 21, 2008 by crazysundog
crazysundog Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 O.K. I've got some initial findings for you. My Rig Intel C2D E8500, OC'd with stock fan to 3.40ghz. (FSB somewhere around 1450 i believe) 2x2GB Kinston Ram 800mhz Nvidia Nforce 750i FTW edition MoBo Nvidia GTX 260 Core216 Superclocked edition GPU LG 22" monitor @ 1680x1050 Windows Vista Ultimate Keep in mind: 1. I'm also running TrackIR4, 2. I am NOT using the affinity trick, so BS is only using Core #0 of my CPU. 3. I used Fraps to record my Min/max/avg fps, dont know how accurate it is... 4. I'm on my 4th beer and things are starting to look fuzzy! 5. While I disabled my HDR mod, i left 'RuggButts Terrain Mod' installed as i didn't want to mess with it... In my previous tests this mod actually increased FPS by a couple of units. This may not be the most scientific approach to benchmarking, and all complaints may be forwarded to www.idontcare.com! As I could not find the Battle.miz you spoke of, I used one of my own missions. The mission includes; taking of from FARP, flying 12km to an enemy convoy that includes 4 humvees, (2 TOWS, 2 MG) - 2 M113 Antiair, and a Bradley. The convoy also has an OH-58 and 2 chinooks tailing it, and I intercept it in a small town. Once in range of the AAA, lots of lead fly's, and the FPS drops. Here are some results... ______________________________________________________________ HIGH SETTINGS textures: high scenes: high civ traffic: yes water: high visib range: high heat blur: on shadows: full resolution: 1680x1050 aspect: 16:10 monitors: 1camera res.of cockpit displays: 1024 every frame FPS low: 14 high: 32 avg: 20 IMHO: This was like playing FSX, pretty to look at but a rough ride. _________________________________________ MEDIUM SETTINGS textures: med scenes: med civ traffic: yes water: med visib range: med heat blur: off shadows: all planar resolution: 1680x1050 aspect: 16:10 monitors: 1camera res.of cockpit displays: 512 every frame FPS low: 17 high: 60 avg: 43 IMHO: This was buttery smooth, most of the time my FPS was around 45-50. Downside was the blurry cockpit textures. _________________________________________ My Ideal Settings. textures: high scenes: high civ traffic: yes water: med visib range: high heat blur: on shadows: all planar resolution: 1680x1050 aspect: 16:10 monitors: 1camera res.of cockpit displays: 1024 FPS low: 19 high: 60 avg: 38 IMHO: For some reason setting the res. of cockpit displays to 512 every frame has a huge impact on performance. My advise is to keep it on regular 1024.
carmelid Posted December 21, 2008 Author Posted December 21, 2008 Thanks! Mission attached :music_whistling:. Could you give it a try? I am interested in checking at the following spec: textures: High scenes: med civ traffic: no water: med visib range: med heat blur: off shadows: all planar resolution: 1280x1024 aspect: 5:4 monitors: 1camera res.of cockpit displays: 512 If you can, please try to pay attention to the avg frames you get right at the start, and then get in closer, and see what happens when the artillery shells falls nearby. On my rig, the mission becomes unplayable at this point as the FPS goes down to 10s.Battle.miz
crazysundog Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 OMG man.....who wrote that crazy script!!! anyway, that .miz is definately the workout for my CPU. With the resolution set to 1280x1024, my FPS didn't do too well, probably because its not the native res of my monitor. 1280x1024 FPS: min=15 max=42 avg=21 I was a little disappointed with this....that minimum was at the Arty fire you mentioned. I tried it at my screen resolution and got a little better results. 1680x1050 FPS: min=17 (again at the arty strike.) max=45 avg=24 anyhow, I cant wait to try this once i have my new CPU cooler installed and my CPU OC'd to about 3.8 and up!!
carmelid Posted December 22, 2008 Author Posted December 22, 2008 Thanks mate. Indeed it seems like the sim those not scale very well when things get hot around. Please update with this mission FPS when you get into the ~4 range :)
Recommended Posts