Best benchmarks for measuring DCS performance?

[Hoirtel]

So with the recent launch of AM5 chips I am starting to think about what PC parts I am going actually going to buy. It won't be too long before the new stuff is getting widely reviewed, this includes intel's 13th gen. Down the line this machine will also  get a next gen GPU (either brand!)

I am never quite sure which of the benchmarks/games that commonly get tested across all the various outlets are most applicable to DCS performance. Does anyone have any ideas? It would be good to have something to look out for that is a comparable workload. DCS is the sole reason for the new build.

I'm of course always on the lookout for CPU single core performance results, I think these will still be applicable even if/when DCS becomes multi threaded as it is with other games.

I also use DCS in VR exclusively so comparing this is also difficult although previously the biggest Nvidia card I could get was about right! I'm not so sure it will work like this next time.

[Lurker]

7 minutes ago, Hoirtel said:

So with the recent launch of AM5 chips I am starting to think about what PC parts I am going actually going to buy. It won't be too long before the new stuff is getting widely reviewed, this includes intel's 13th gen. Down the line this machine will also  get a next gen GPU (either brand!)

I am never quite sure which of the benchmarks/games that commonly get tested across all the various outlets are most applicable to DCS performance. Does anyone have any ideas? It would be good to have something to look out for that is a comparable workload. DCS is the sole reason for the new build.

I'm of course always on the lookout for CPU single core performance results, I think these will still be applicable even if/when DCS becomes multi threaded as it is with other games.

I also use DCS in VR exclusively so comparing this is also difficult although previously the biggest Nvidia card I could get was about right! I'm not so sure it will work like this next time.

I wouldn't trust any benchmarks with regards to DCS World really, apart from things that directly measure single threaded performance. In DCS this is still king. But even that varies significantly between systems, depending on a lot of factors. In essence, just go with the fastest you can afford, you probably can't go wrong there. 

[Hoirtel]

1 minute ago, Lurker said:

I wouldn't trust any benchmarks with regards to DCS World really, apart from things that directly measure single threaded performance. In DCS this is still king. But even that varies significantly between systems, depending on a lot of factors. In essence, just go with the fastest you can afford, you probably can't go wrong there. 

Well, yeah...maybe... also not really. I'm think of comparing 13th gen to AM5. I'm sure they will be trading blows of sorts in certain places and the "correct" decision will come down to what you are actually doing, hence the benchmarks. Also its easy to spend an extra 200 dollars on an imperceptible bit of extra perf. I would avoid that if I can.

I mean some of them will surely be closer. I have heard that DCS and flight sims get worked hard by many CPU draw calls. There must be a benchmark that replicates this? I already know that rendering benches are not really applicable, but less sure of the other direction.

[Lurker]

10 minutes ago, Hoirtel said:

Well, yeah...maybe... also not really. I'm think of comparing 13th gen to AM5. I'm sure they will be trading blows of sorts in certain places and the "correct" decision will come down to what you are actually doing, hence the benchmarks. Also its easy to spend an extra 200 dollars on an imperceptible bit of extra perf. I would avoid that if I can.

I mean some of them will surely be closer. I have heard that DCS and flight sims get worked hard by many CPU draw calls. There must be a benchmark that replicates this? I already know that rendering benches are not really applicable, but less sure of the other direction.

In that case I would just go with AMD. The best way to "measure" this is power draw. If Intel's newest chips need twice the power to match or better Zen4 performance, while costing the same or even if slightly cheaper, then there is no contest. Zen4 is the way to go, unless Intel pulls a rabbit from a hat somehow I suspect this will be the case with the new chips as well. 

This is what I would do when upgrading, I would compare Intel and AMDs chips in my price range, and just check which runs more efficiently in single threaded operation. So these are the benchmarks to look for, ones that test single threaded performance. Another thing people always forget is thermals. A chip that requires twice the power, usually needs much more efficient cooling as well. This can have significant effects on it's boost speed and efficiency if not cooled well, and especially if it's overclocked. 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Lurker

[Hoirtel]

25 minutes ago, Lurker said:

In that case I would just go with AMD. The best way to "measure" this is power draw. If Intel's newest chips need twice the power to match or better Zen4 performance, while costing the same or even if slightly cheaper, then there is no contest. Zen4 is the way to go, unless Intel pulls a rabbit from a hat somehow I suspect this will be the case with the new chips as well. 

This is what I would do when upgrading, I would compare Intel and AMDs chips in my price range, and just check which runs more efficiently in single threaded operation. So these are the benchmarks to look for, ones that test single threaded performance. Another thing people always forget is thermals. A chip that requires twice the power, usually needs much more efficient cooling as well. This can have significant effects on it's boost speed and efficiency if not cooled well, and especially if it's overclocked. 

 

Hmm, Well, efficiency is important but I would burn (and cool) an extra 200w for a measurable performance gain, even if it is small. The rumours are that 13th gen will be fast but in a 350w mode. This seems a bit nuts compared to AMDs stated TDP but if intel is better for DCS then, its better.

You say compare chips in my price range. Yes, that's exactly what I am asking, which benchmarks do this best over just looking at single core perf. Also which GPU benches are best as this is round the corner too.

[Hiob]

For predicting the raw single-player fps performance, Heaven Benchmark comes relatively close. When you gain 3% fps in heaven, you will likely see +3% in DCS as well.

Mind though, that DCS has several performance killers, that doesn't scale as linear. Heavy Scripts, lots of AI, multiple video feeds and so on and so forth.

[Hoirtel]

1 hour ago, Hiob said:

For predicting the raw single-player fps performance, Heaven Benchmark comes relatively close. When you gain 3% fps in heaven, you will likely see +3% in DCS as well.

Mind though, that DCS has several performance killers, that doesn't scale as linear. Heavy Scripts, lots of AI, multiple video feeds and so on and so forth.

Thanks, I'll keep a look out for that. I think heaven has fallen out of the common list these days, but I might be wrong.

Yes difficult to test with the rest, mostly CPU workloads.  I think have a good feeling for when DCS is going to struggle and why so I am looking for some benchmarks that can reflect a steady SP modest state, which is what I use to tune my settings. A server like enigmas would be impossible to test against consistently!

[Lurker]

2 hours ago, Hoirtel said:

You say compare chips in my price range. Yes, that's exactly what I am asking, which benchmarks do this best over just looking at single core perf. Also which GPU benches are best as this is round the corner too.

Most reviews will list which benchmarks stress single threaded operations. But I have to note, again, that synthetic benchmarks are not always indicative of real world performance. For the best, and unbiased reviews of new hardware out there, I always come back to Gamers Nexus (https://www.youtube.com/c/GamersNexus) 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Lurker

[Hoirtel]

37 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Most reviews will list which benchmarks stress single threaded operations. But I have to note, again, that synthetic benchmarks are not always indicative of real world performance. For the best, and unbiased reviews of new hardware out there, I always come back to Gamers Nexus (https://www.youtube.com/c/GamersNexus) 

 

Thanks for your input, but I think you are missing the point of the query. 

[Pyrocumulous]

DCS World in VR needs (1) high single-thread speed, and (2) it hits the memory hard with lots of calls. For #1, the fastest single threaded processor is what you want. For #2, you want the fastest memory you can get. For Ryzen this has meant matching memory speed to the infinity fabric speed (e.g. 3600 Mt/s, and infinity fabric at 1800 Mhz) and then picking the lowest CAS latency. For Intel, this has meant the memory with the quickest first-word latency. However, 3D V-Cache kind of changed the rules with criteria #2. Now, you can get a Ryzen 5800x3D with lots of cache, and it doesn't really need fast memory because DCS World is hammering the (much faster) cache rather than the memory.

To your question, probably the best canned benchmark is MS Flight Simulator.

To answer your deeper question, the Zen 4 3D v-cache CPUs are likely going to be the amazing for driving VR in DCS World. I am skeptical that either the new non-vcache Zen 4 or Rocket Lake CPUs will actually out perform the current Ryzen 5800x3D in DCS. The other challenge with buying Zen 4 now is that DDR5 is in the early days, so the latency is still relatively high, which is going to hurt in DCS.

For GPU, 3D Mark Firestrike is a good benchmark for DirectX 11. In VR, only the nVidia cards support foveated rendering, which is a pretty significant advantage. I am currently on Radeon, but plan to switch solely for that functionality for this next generation.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Pyrocumulous
typo

[EightyDuce]

Not sure about the benchmarks as DCS is a bit of an odd bird as its on an old engine which leans on single-thread performance but....

The next V-cash chip(s) like the 7800X3D and the 7950X3D (supposedly coming Q1 '23) will be absolute monsters for DCS due to single thread performance and will be unmatched by any other AMD or Intel chip.

Outside of the X3D models, 7600X will likely trade blows with i5 in single thread and lose out in MT (irrelevant in DCS).

I am finally upgrading this generation from a 7700K and 1080ti (which absolutely got wrecked by my Reverb G2). My build is going to be 7800X3D on a X670 or B650E board, 32Gb DDR5, and either a 4080 or a 7800XT. AMD route for CPU isn't going to be cheap though, CPU probably $500, Mobo $250-350, ram 200-300 but will last several generations of chips on the AM5 platform. Intel, you're getting a dead-end socket...but you can also still use DDR4.

[BitMaster]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb EightyDuce:

Not sure about the benchmarks as DCS is a bit of an odd bird as its on an old engine which leans on single-thread performance but....

The next V-cash chip(s) like the 7800X3D and the 7950X3D (supposedly coming Q1 '23) will be absolute monsters for DCS due to single thread performance and will be unmatched by any other AMD or Intel chip.

Outside of the X3D models, 7600X will likely trade blows with i5 in single thread and lose out in MT (irrelevant in DCS).

I am finally upgrading this generation from a 7700K and 1080ti (which absolutely got wrecked by my Reverb G2). My build is going to be 7800X3D on a X670 or B650E board, 32Gb DDR5, and either a 4080 or a 7800XT. AMD route for CPU isn't going to be cheap though, CPU probably $500, Mobo $250-350, ram 200-300 but will last several generations of chips on the AM5 platform. Intel, you're getting a dead-end socket...but you can also still use DDR4.

I wouldn't bet on using the 1st iteration of AM5 board for the 2nd and 3rd generation just because of DDR5. Once they promote the 2nd generation of AM5 chips with better RAM support

and faster RAM available the limiting factor will be the 1st gen. motherboard not being able to run those new settings.  That's how it has mostly been across vendors and the past years/decade with sockets and generations in general.

[EightyDuce]

11 hours ago, BitMaster said:

I wouldn't bet on using the 1st iteration of AM5 board for the 2nd and 3rd generation just because of DDR5. Once they promote the 2nd generation of AM5 chips with better RAM support

and faster RAM available the limiting factor will be the 1st gen. motherboard not being able to run those new settings.  That's how it has mostly been across vendors and the past years/decade with sockets and generations in general.

I'm not sure I understand what it is you're saying, so I apologize if I'm off. AM5 IS going to be the AMD platform for the near future, at least as far as Zen 5 is concerned, and maybe even Zen 6. AMD projects 3-5 year plan for sockets unlike Intel, which up to this point changed almost every other generation. There is absolutely no reason why you wouldn't be able to use "1st gen" AM5 boards (X670/B650) with Zen5 unless AMD completely goes back on what they have said and done in the last 5 years. Not entirely sure what DDR5 has to do with anything; besides, X3D virtually eliminates RAM bottleneck with the large cache. Currently available DDR5, while not as cheap as "cheap" DDR4, has gotten much faster while getting cheaper ($225-300 for 32Gb). You could take a gable and get Kinston 5600 DDR5 which can be Hynix or Samsung, and if you get Hynix chips, you are pretty much guaranteed to hit 6400 and possibly 6600.

[BitMaster]

I may have not been clear enough on the point I wanted to stretch.

Yes, you are right, AM5 will be THE socket for AMD for the next coming years, but that's it. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to blame AMD or anything.

See, the 670er chipsets and boards can only be tested with RAM that they have and CPU features that are present NOW. In the past, you could change a 1800X for a 2700X and later to a 3900X on X370 on most boards, but could you also get to the same RAM speed with a new 3600 kit? They mostly wouldn't run on X370 iirc and then there are the other features you will only get if you also get the new chipset, whatever features those may be. Yes, it works in general but there are pitfalls, let me put it this way. It's impossible to say where exactly the pit is and where not, but sure fast RAM well beyond 670er specs is a typical candidate..

 

[Thinder]

I think it is a question of method, Intel and AMD players won't obtaint the same results, each player perhaps shoud focuse on squeezing the most performance of their system at 4K...

On 9/6/2022 at 4:43 PM, BitMaster said:

I may have not been clear enough on the point I wanted to stretch.

Yes, you are right, AM5 will be THE socket for AMD for the next coming years, but that's it. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to blame AMD or anything.

See, the 670er chipsets and boards can only be tested with RAM that they have and CPU features that are present NOW. In the past, you could change a 1800X for a 2700X and later to a 3900X on X370 on most boards, but could you also get to the same RAM speed with a new 3600 kit? They mostly wouldn't run on X370 iirc and then there are the other features you will only get if you also get the new chipset, whatever features those may be. Yes, it works in general but there are pitfalls, let me put it this way. It's impossible to say where exactly the pit is and where not, but sure fast RAM well beyond 670er specs is a typical candidate..

 

AMD bring a lot of changes and advances with the Zen 4, first the Infinity Fabric runs at 3000MHz, that's 1000MHz faster than Zen3, but the RAM frequency to latency ratio still lags behind.

The Ryzens are designed for lower latency so for as long as AMD players will have to deal with Cl30 and so for just to increase frequencies and use DDR5, the amount of progress in real time gaming will still be limited.

We need a new die, the equivalent at 6000 MHz to B.Die at 3600 MHZ and it's still not out of the pipeline today, reason why I chose to upgrade with a Zen 3D and not pay the premium (be it performance or cost) just for RAM and die manufacturers to do their home work.

For Intel users the situation is a tad brighter, their controllers are not dealing with higher latencies that bad, they like higher frequencies better than the Ryzens, at the end of the day it's a question of personal choice, either you chose to go for the new technologies and won't be able to run your AMD CPU at full potential for a while or you go Zen 3 and rely on known values.