DCS: A-10C Warthog PC config

[power5]

Yeah and don't be afraid of overclocking, it is really easy today especially with i5/i7. To turn 2.67Ghz into 4.2Ghz is just awesome.

 

Is that on AIR? Or some elaborate WC setup?

 

 

other topic:

CPU has shown to give much bigger FPS increases than GPU. Mainstream cards seem to do fine in DCS. You dont need top shelf stuff. All the card does is render the picture. And the picture in DCS is much easier than it is in Crysis.

[popov54]

I'm not going to claim I know I'm right, but I have to ask this.

Whenever you read a benchmark for a new processor, they alway try to take out the GPU from the equation by removing all AA and AF and also reducing resolution to it's lowest level possible.

 

If I do this in A-10C, I get buttery smooth FPS even at Nellis range and I'm running an e8500 OC'd slightly @3.6. But even stock at 3.1 it still runs perfect. Try it.

It's when the res is bumped up past 1600, and or, the AA or other settings get used that rendering bogs down. So what I'm after, is the performance of A-10c when AA and AF and the eyecandy is turned down at 12x10, but all at 19x12 and with everything maxed. Surely that can't be too much to demand from ???? Cpu or Gpu that is the question?

 

In my earlier post on this thread, I mentioned I was building a new rig, piece by piece, so waiting for the 6900 series isnt specifically for A10c, I just want this new rig to last another 2-3 years. A-10C just sort of gave me a nudge to get on with it. If a dev or tester could chime in and tell us all what they use on their "master" system to run A-10 and why, it would be helpful. Not to say the logic experiments we're doing on this aren't fun. :)

Edited October 29, 2010 by popov54

[SFJackBauer]

And the picture in DCS is much easier than it is in Crysis.

 

Myth. All flight simulators since its inception battled against graphics performance problems. Crysis is just a hype-packed holywood-action game that built a false sense of "graphic heaviness" through their marketing skills. You can't compare a constrained Crysis map and its limited visibility with the challenges confronted by flight simulators.

 

What impedes flight sims to achieve the next level of graphics performance is the fact that given the amount of data (mostly terrain) they need to handle, ALL computer parts ending up working synchronously (hard disk loads terrain chunk into memory, CPU transforms data into triangles, GPU renders triangles etc). Only when someone build a truly parallel-processed simulator engine, the hardware will be better utilized than today's. But rocketry science is in certain aspects easier than achieving that.

[popov54]

^ LouisV on page 3 or this thread confirmed as much. He's running a GTX 480. The best single card most of us would ever consider asking Santa Claus for, lol.

 

He's saying the load on the card is 99% Which is holding back his CPU!

[Succellus]

Yeah i just saw that...

Would be interesting to to know the result of an SLI GTX 480.

This probably means that my GTX460 will have problem.

 

I don t know if jack IS right, on the whole picture he is, but at the end of the day, its end up on how much triangles, bump mapping, specular and whatever else geek GPU vocabulary can be thrown up and the card have to work with.

 

Now i m wondering, we all know the GF card are specifically preped to hold crisys like games (greater market), but are not preped for sims. I wonder what features are overstressed and represent a bottleneck for even the 480 GTX and what features are left idle.

 

On a side note i never use AA and AF (not knowingly) i really don t see that much increment in the game that justify such a loss of performance.

 

On the bright side the game is WIP!!!!

[Sn8ke]

pc config

 

I have a Q9650 quad core at 3.6GHZ, 8 Gigs of 1000mhz DDR2 RAM, (2X) 9800GTX + (1GB each) running in SLI, Windows XP 64-bit, Directx 9.0C, current nvidia drivers . Should I get favorable FPS performance?

[MemphisBelle]

I have a Q9650 quad core at 3.6GHZ, 8 Gigs of 1000mhz DDR2 RAM, (2X) 9800GTX + (1GB each) running in SLI, Windows XP 64-bit, Directx 9.0C, current nvidia drivers . Should I get favorable FPS performance?

 

Your CPU is a bit overpowered comparing to your GFX card. But you should get good FPS nevertheless. I dont know about the behaviour since you got a SLI system. But it should be good...try it out.

[CrossMAX]

What kind of freaking machine do i need =]

 

I have a I7(quad) - 950, 6GB 1600MHz RAM, Nvidia GFX 470 graphic card, and I can go 1280x800 High/Medium details (HDR & TSAA ON).

 

And I sometimes get 10-15FPS looking out from 15.000ft... =P

[Succellus]

Er i dont know my config will be almost as good as yours, but it will be a clean PC install. (minimum junk). Remember this is still very unoptimized.

 

How your GPU memory consuption, your core and RAM workload. Whats you MB and you HD ?

[CrossMAX]

Er i dont know my config will be almost as good as yours, but it will be a clean PC install. (minimum junk). Remember this is still very unoptimized.

 

How your GPU memory consuption, your core and RAM workload. Whats you MB and you HD ?

 

Know any nice software to log history of CPU, GPU, MEM,... load

[power5]

If you are on a 64 bit system using the 64 bit program, then yes more ram should help texture load times.

[Succellus]

Know any nice software to log history of CPU, GPU, MEM,... load

 

UHummm usually ASUS did this, i also believe syssandra did this but i am not sure , usually if you alt tab and has the management tab open you can monitor cores and RAM usage. Just set aflight path and look at the usage.

[Succellus]

I'm running 64-bit Windows 7 and using the 32-bit binary due to TrackIR for the moment. I loaded up the first Campaign Mission using both the 32-bit and 64-bit binaries and both didn't go over 1 GB. It was only a quick test so I'm not sure how this would change over the course of like an hour of flying. Maybe it all depends on how much content you load a mission up with. Here's a couple interesting posts.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=43405&highlight=.exe

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=48384&highlight=limit

 

 

It will surely get down on the road as AI will kick in to manage battle, vehicle etc, the interesting is in a loaded cenário how you PC take the hit ?

[Duke49th]

Hi guys..

 

After more than 8 month not flying anything I want to get DCS-A10 Beta. Coz it seems to now get what I'm looking for...

Also had no time and money due to new girlfriend (see avatar)...OMG they are expensive :D So why I have only very low budget...:(

 

I have AMD X3-720 (3x2,8ghz) and 6GB DDR-2 Ram. But now only Geforce 8300 Onboard Graphics Chip.

 

I am looking for a cheap Graphics Card. So I searched and found AMD/ATI 5750 on ebay for about 60Euro. In Benchmarks the card is a bit slower than 4870.

 

But I may can get a Geforce 8600GT for free. Is that card enough to run it without big fps hits on medium settings? (important for me is high view distance and scenery on minimum medium)

[silentbob11]

Myth. All flight simulators since its inception battled against graphics performance problems. Crysis is just a hype-packed holywood-action game that built a false sense of "graphic heaviness" through their marketing skills. You can't compare a constrained Crysis map and its limited visibility with the challenges confronted by flight simulators.

 

What impedes flight sims to achieve the next level of graphics performance is the fact that given the amount of data (mostly terrain) they need to handle, ALL computer parts ending up working synchronously (hard disk loads terrain chunk into memory, CPU transforms data into triangles, GPU renders triangles etc). Only when someone build a truly parallel-processed simulator engine, the hardware will be better utilized than today's. But rocketry science is in certain aspects easier than achieving that.

 

 

JackBauer

we have almost the same rig (with the exception of GPU - I have an ATi HD4870 1 gig)

my biggest issue with performence is when i turn on the AGP or maverick seeker head then the FPS drop segnificantly (to about half) the last time I took a campaign mission and turned on AGP I crawled to single digit FPS when flying over the frontline (heavy activity, tracers, vehicles, smoke and so on)

normally, after I take off and head to the range I can get about 40-45 FPS on medium/high setting.

whats your take on these issues?

 

SB

[RSharpe]

i7 920 @ 4.2Ghz

HD5850 @ 900/1200

4096 MB DDR-3 Ram

 

Just curious, why are you running 4 gigs of RAM with an i7 920? Why not take advantage of triple channel of a X58 motherboard.

 

I'm still waiting on my HOTAS so I haven't ordered DCS A-10C yet. I'm running a i7 @4.00ghz and 6GB of RAM at 1600mhz with a 5850 running stock clocks. I'm guessing I'll be ok at 1920x1200 but I'm still not sure what to go with when I start running 3 1920x1200 monitors. None of the current video cards seem to fit the bill as of yet.

[Duke49th]

Wow..this is impressive:

 

Black Shark runs without any config tweaks on minium Settings in 1024x768 @35fps with my Onboard Geforce 8300 (256 MB Shared Memory) on lowest clock settings.:thumbup:

 

 

My new question is:

 

How much difference in Video-performance is between Black Shark and A-10 ?

 

Thanks in advance

[power5]

Just curious, why are you running 4 gigs of RAM with an i7 920? Why not take advantage of triple channel of a X58 motherboard.

 

I'm still waiting on my HOTAS so I haven't ordered DCS A-10C yet. I'm running a i7 @4.00ghz and 6GB of RAM at 1600mhz with a 5850 running stock clocks. I'm guessing I'll be ok at 1920x1200 but I'm still not sure what to go with when I start running 3 1920x1200 monitors. None of the current video cards seem to fit the bill as of yet.

 

5970 seems to fit the bill just fine to me. If not, get 2. Should be more than enough power. Not sure a 4ghz i7 is enough for that much GPU though. Probably going to need chilled water or phase or something exotic to keep up with the GPUs.

[Scout]

I am wanting to upgrade my GPU. Tonight I almost bought 2 GTX 460 FTW's but I stopped cause I am worried about my CPU and a bottlenecking issue. I know my CPU is not a new I series but I am hoping that it will do the job.

 

My question is: Should I SLI two cards together, either the 460's or even 450's or just get one 460 FTW? From what I read in the thread A10 wants CPU power more than GPU power, but I know getting a new video card will do wonders. Just asking advice on how much GPU power to get.

 

Another 4 gigs of RAM and Windows 7 64bit are not far behind this this step of upgrade.

 

My system spec are in my signature below. Also my max resolution is 1680x1050

Edited November 3, 2010 by Scout

[openfalcon68]

My config is C2D E6750, 4GB DDR3 RAM and I had to buy a GTX240 1GB DDR3 when I discovered that my onboard video is not supported. FPS is 30 ish at 1440x900

 

M.

[MemphisBelle]

My config is C2D E6750, 4GB DDR3 RAM and I had to buy a GTX240 1GB DDR3 when I discovered that my onboard video is not supported. FPS is 30 ish at 1440x900

 

M.

 

 

LOL...onboard gfx is never a good Idea for 3D games...espacially not for DCS

[MemphisBelle]

 

My question is: Should I SLI two cards together, either the 460's or even 450's or just get one 460 FTW? From what I read in the thread A10 wants CPU power more than GPU power, but I know getting a new video card will do wonders. Just asking advice on how much GPU power to get.

 

If you´ve got the possibilite to get a SLI GTX460, so I´d suggest to save the money and get a new CPU for this. Since CPU´s are not as expensive as new Cards are. You could also invest in another board. Balancing the system is the best thing you can do to get good fps results, for any game.

 

It´s correckt that DCS wants more CPU power, but you can only get all the power properly working if no one of the devices is slowing down the other ones.

[MadTommy]

I am wanting to upgrade my GPU. Tonight I almost bought 2 GTX 460 FTW's but I stopped cause I am worried about my CPU and a bottlenecking issue. I know my CPU is not a new I series but I am hoping that it will do the job.

 

I'm running a faster cpu but only dualcore (E8400 @ 3.6 Ghz) and i have not seen it max out.. runs at about 70-80% load..mt GTX 260 is taking a pounding though..pretty much maxed out.

[Crazyowl]

This is again talkimg about the FPS. Iam not good at this part thas why I ask, I notice now that

I have "FPS" and when I hit again ctrl pause I got more info the one that got me confuse was the "Frame Time" wish one is the one I need to keep and eye to the FPS or the Frame Time. I ask cause Frame time is like 100.50 to 150.00 always higher that the FPS that is 20 to 25 or sometimes lower?

[power5]

no idea what frame time is, but FPS is frames per second and that is what determines how fluid it looks. If it looks like a slideshow you are well below 10FPS.