Benchmark here (DCS World 1.2.4 A-10C module reqired)

[Erforce]

Yes and no.

 

A while ago, EtheralN explains us that it may depend the CPU architecture too, (floating point etc..)

as proof, my xeons were capped out @70% per core.

And they was the problem, definitely a CPU bottelneck. (my gpu was at 40-70% load in such situation)

[GKOver]

For me there is one very important question still open:

 

Is it better (or worth) to buy 2 SLI-combined GTX-Titans instead of "only" 2 GTX-780?

Or in other words: will the performance be better with the 6GB Video memory instead of "only" 3 GB?

 

(Let's say under the following circumstances:

 

• resolution of 3840x1200,
  
• with 8xMSAA,
  
• other effects,
  
• all CPU-Cores will be used with a forthcoming version of DCS-World.
  

)

 

Currently I am still thinking about upgrading my i7-2600-system from SLI 2xGTX295 to SLI 2xGTX-Titan or SLI 2xGTX-780.....

And the price difference is very different between these two new GTX-models....

[Spadje]

I just wish the sim supported Crossfire...

 

AVG FPS : 13.4

MEMORY USED : 2480

GRAPHICS CARD : 2x 6950 2GB (only using 1 card)

CPU : i7 920 @ 3.5GHz

MAIN MEMORY SIZE : 16GB

GPU MEM USED : 1273

 

COMMENTS: Most settings on high no AA or HDR

[_Dredd]

For me there is one very important question still open:

 

Is it better (or worth) to buy 2 SLI-combined GTX-Titans instead of "only" 2 GTX-780?

Or in other words: will the performance be better with the 6GB Video memory instead of "only" 3 GB?

 

(Let's say under the following circumstances:

 

• resolution of 3840x1200,
  
• with 8xMSAA,
  
• other effects,
  
• all CPU-Cores will be used with a forthcoming version of DCS-World.
  

)

 

Currently I am still thinking about upgrading my i7-2600-system from SLI 2xGTX295 to SLI 2xGTX-Titan or SLI 2xGTX-780.....

And the price difference is very different between these two new GTX-models....

 

Currently my single Titan is using approx 4.8GB VRAM over four monitors at 6696x1920, if that gives you an idea.

[Spadje]

Ok here is something odd. I am clocked at 3.5GHz with my i7 920. I upped my clocks to 3.6GHz and it lost me 1fps on average. Could it be a memory thing? I am running 16GB of G.Skill 1333 (oc'd to 1400)....kinda strange I would lose performance on overclocking my CPU.

 

EDIT: Just clocked down to 3.2GHz and now run 14.2fps average....I am so confused. I am going to test this at stock speeds....

Edited June 19, 2013 by Spadje

[GKOver]

Currently my single Titan is using approx 4.8GB VRAM over four monitors at 6696x1920, if that gives you an idea.

 

As far as I know MSAA also need Video Memory. Do you have switched on 4/8/16xMSAA?

[_Dredd]

Screenshot of my settings is in Tzeer's performance thread. I'm currently using 8xMSAA

[xracer]

Ok here is something odd. I am clocked at 3.5GHz with my i7 920. I upped my clocks to 3.6GHz and it lost me 1fps on average. Could it be a memory thing? I am running 16GB of G.Skill 1333 (oc'd to 1400)....kinda strange I would lose performance on overclocking my CPU.

 

EDIT: Just clocked down to 3.2GHz and now run 14.2fps average....I am so confused. I am going to test this at stock speeds....

 

Yeah, that beats me too, If i go to 4.1 GHz from 3.8 i go from 39 to 37 fps avg in the benchmark. Better get a real compwiz to explain that for us. Anyway i dont really care cause i have very good performance now compared to before. Got almost 3 times the fps now. Another thing though is that i'm back to 15 or so if i setup my 3 screens. I guess i dont really understand how this works in DCS. In iRacing which i use alot i get the same performance with 3 as i do with 1. Maybe its the ultra detailed units i have in the benchmark or DCS in general? iRacing do render each screen separate too.

Edited June 19, 2013 by xracer

[Madone]

Ok here is something odd. I am clocked at 3.5GHz with my i7 920. I upped my clocks to 3.6GHz and it lost me 1fps on average. Could it be a memory thing? I am running 16GB of G.Skill 1333 (oc'd to 1400)....kinda strange I would lose performance on overclocking my CPU.

 

EDIT: Just clocked down to 3.2GHz and now run 14.2fps average....I am so confused. I am going to test this at stock speeds....

 

Hi, no it's not really strange, I experienced the same with my CPU, the fact is that I can only increase the bus frequency on my i3 so if I go too high, the CPU fails and create errors which apparently leads to a system crash or data loss decreasing the performance, that's what I've been told and it seems a possible explanation. :(

Maybe it's the something similar for you?

[Modulus]

Settings: TSSAA OFF, Tree Shadows OFF, HDR OFF, Cockpit res 1024

Screen res: 1650x1050

Clean install with default LOW, MED, and HIGH configs.

CPU : Core i7 4770k @ 4.4GHZ (overclocked)

MAIN MEMORY SIZE : 32 GB

GPU: Geforce GTX 680

GPU Mem: 4096

 

Low:

AVG FPS : 44

MEMORY USED : 3548 MB

GPU MEM used: 600 MB

 

MED:

AVG FPS : 34

MEMORY USED : 3321 MB

GPU MEM used: 770 MB

 

HIGH

AVG FPS : 33

MEMORY USED : 2812 MB

GPU MEM used: 1360 MB

 

I also tried with MSAA 4x, and it had only an impact of 1 or 2 FPS.

 

 

 

I also ran lowering the CPU clock:

@3.5 GHZ

HIGH Setting FPS: 31-32 (about 1 FPS than at 4.4GHZ).

@ 1.6GHZ

HIGH Setting FPS: 19

 

I then fiddled with the task affinity, and recorded the following (@4.4GHZ )

4+ cores: 32-33 FPS

3 cores: 31-32 FPS

2 cores: 25-26 FPS

1 core: 18 FPS (with stuttering)

 

More data (GPU usage at clock rates)

CPU: 2.7Ghz, GPU% 86 FPS: 29-30

CPU: 2.9Ghz, GPU% 90 FPS: 30-31

CPU: 3.5Ghz, GPU% 92 FPS: 31-32

CPU: 4.4Ghz, GPU% 93 FPS: 31-33

These results are a little odd. It show that there is a relation to CPU clock speed, framerate, and GPU usage, but the relationship is not linear. Maybe there is something else mixed in here, perhaps some bus is maxing out?

Edited June 20, 2013 by Modulus

[xracer]

Settings: TSSAA OFF, Tree Shadows OFF, HDR OFF, Cockpit res 1024

Screen res: 1650x1050

Clean install with default LOW, MED, and HIGH configs.

CPU : Core i7 4770k @ 4.4GHZ (overclocked)

MAIN MEMORY SIZE : 32 GB

GPU: Geforce GTX 680

GPU Mem: 4096

 

Low:

AVG FPS : 44

MEMORY USED : 3548 MB

GPU MEM used: 600 MB

 

MED:

AVG FPS : 34

MEMORY USED : 3321 MB

GPU MEM used: 770 MB

 

HIGH

AVG FPS : 33

MEMORY USED : 2812 MB

GPU MEM used: 1360 MB

 

I also tried with MSAA 4x, and it had only an impact of 1 or 2 FPS.

 

 

 

I also ran lowering the CPU clock:

@3.5 GHZ

HIGH Setting FPS: 31-32 (about 1 FPS than at 4.4GHZ).

@ 1.6GHZ

HIGH Setting FPS: 19

 

I then fiddled with the task affinity, and recorded the following (@4.4GHZ )

4+ cores: 32-33 FPS

3 cores: 31-32 FPS

2 cores: 25-26 FPS

1 core: 18 FPS (with stuttering)

 

More data (GPU usage at clock rates)

CPU: 2.7Ghz, GPU% 86 FPS: 29-30

CPU: 2.9Ghz, GPU% 90 FPS: 30-31

CPU: 3.5Ghz, GPU% 92 FPS: 31-32

CPU: 4.4Ghz, GPU% 93 FPS: 31-33

These results are a little odd. It show that there is a relation to CPU clock speed, framerate, and GPU usage, but the relationship is not linear. Maybe there is something else mixed in here, perhaps some bus is maxing out?

What we so see here is that if you have a CPU running above approx 3.5 Ghz and you want to get alot better fps you should not only buy a better graphics card you should buy the best there is out there. This reminds me about all the talk about flightsims being so CPU intensive. To prove that we would maybe need a benchtest with alot more units but with low polycount and details or else the fps will be low doesnt matter which system. The way it looks in the tests DCS is more GPU than CPU hungry. An avg CPU should be enough.

[Nealius]

Is the HD7850 not a "good card" anymore? I have an average CPU and it obviously isn't enough no matter what graphics settings I use. I thought 2GB would be enough to run anything these days.

[xracer]

Is the HD7850 not a "good card" anymore? I have an average CPU and it obviously isn't enough no matter what graphics settings I use. I thought 2GB would be enough to run anything these days.

 

There are no guarantees, but i had the 5850 and your 7850 is stronger. GPu mem is far from all as GTX-580's with far less than 2 gb perform very well. As i mentioned before my W7 is stripped to the bone including a AERO free desktop and rock steady zero CPU usage when DCS is not running and to get to the point. After changing to the GTX-780 i've now got 3 times the fps. So i guess thats all we need to know or? Unless something else is not right it must then be that AMD you have. When looking at tests of the x8xx series they arent the best for sure GPU wise. Most all GTX cards are on paper alot more capable even down to 4x0 series. But if you are looking to upgrade do not buy a expensive GTX card before your sure you have capable CPU. If you later find that it is the AMD causing all, then it seems that that the money saved on a AMD platform isnt a smart way to go when gaming is what its gonna be used for. Seems ppl should at least go for the 8350 for gaming if choosing a AMD architecture.

Edited June 20, 2013 by xracer

[BIGNEWY]

I have a 7850 2gb and a fx 8350

 

at the moment I dont think I am getting the best out of my system, and it is obvious DCS does not like AMD as NVIDIA seem to perform better.

 

I have taken a gamble with an AMD system and my hope is once DCS changes its engine to EDGE I will see some improvement.

 

All I can do is wait . . . . .

[Milli]

Is that tin foil on your head BIGNEWY? I hear it helps stop alien abduction. Does it work?

 

Regards,

Milli

[xracer]

I have a 7850 2gb and a fx 8350

 

at the moment I dont think I am getting the best out of my system, and it is obvious DCS does not like AMD as NVIDIA seem to perform better.

 

I have taken a gamble with an AMD system and my hope is once DCS changes its engine to EDGE I will see some improvement.

 

All I can do is wait . . . . .

 

Yeah, hopefully EDGE will be a good thing performance wise. Anyway that FX 8350 you have is not that far behind some of the better ivy cpu's so it may very well give you solid boost if you upgrade you graphics card. My advise is if you can/will spend the money, buy above GTX-770 if on Nvidia. where i live the 780 cost the same as a Titan in the US so the Titan was just too much for me. But looking at single screen setups the performance in DCS is more or less the same for those cards. For you though, I seriously mean that your 7850 is way to low spec for that 8350. Also have you tried OC on that 8350?

[BIGNEWY]

No I have not tried to OC the 8350 yet, just installed a H40 water cooler, first time I have used water cooling and it seems to make a big difference with my temperatures, so I will consider OC in the future.

 

My budget ( as always ) is very tight, part of the reason I went for AMD / ATI, I will wait to see what optimizations 1.2.5 brings and if no improvement consider an upgrade :)

 

 

Is that tin foil on your head BIGNEWY? I hear it helps stop alien abduction. Does it work?

 

Regards,

Milli

 

I'm not saying it was aliens

 

 

but it was aliens !! :)

Edited June 20, 2013 by BIGNEWY

[xracer]

No I have not tried to OC the 8350 yet, just installed a H40 water cooler, first time I have used water cooling and it seems to make a big difference with my temperatures, so I will consider OC in the future.

 

My budget ( as always ) is very tight, part of the reason I went for AMD / ATI, I will wait to see what optimizations 1.2.5 brings and if no improvement consider an upgrade :)

 

Am not so much on a tight budget, but its more that i have too many interrests. Like Motorcycles (love my ZXR 750) and guitargadgets etc.

 

Anyway good luck on your quest to a faster DCS :thumbup:

[mmaruda]

Just tried the test after taking down my OC (room is too hot now).

Specs are as follows:

I5 2500K@3,7 (OC was 4,5)

8GB RAM

GTX 680 with 2GB

 

Went with everything maxed out (displays 512, HDR cold, tree shadows on).

 

I get around 31 FPS average and the framerate dipped to 24 when the planes were taxing.

 

To be honest I cannot see any benefits from over-clocking at this point.

[xracer]

Just tried the test after taking down my OC (room is too hot now).

Specs are as follows:

I5 2500K@3,7 (OC was 4,5)

8GB RAM

GTX 680 with 2GB

 

Went with everything maxed out (displays 512, HDR cold, tree shadows on).

 

I get around 31 FPS average and the framerate dipped to 24 when the planes were taxing.

 

To be honest I cannot see any benefits from over-clocking at this point.

 

No, doesnt look like it matters alot in this particular benchtest. I have my doubts it matters even if the scenario is more "CPU intensive" which is guess means alot of battles going and lots of floating point calculations going on. But it looks as the GPU is doing alot of the work in the sim. GPU's nowadays aren't like they used to be :) For me OC more or less needs watercooling as my CPU is a 130W so there is money in that, and i knew it had to be easily adapted to new CPU's for it being worth it . It has included adapters for most current CPU's. Anyway for only DCS the gains look minimal above 4 GHz, but maybe that change with EDGE or multi core/threading.

Edited June 21, 2013 by xracer

[GKOver]

Yesterday I have ordered a Zotac GTX-Titan Amp! Edition for my computer (i7-2600) to replace my SLI 2 x GTX-295. I have bought these cards at the beginning of 2009.

 

Until yesterday I was always thinking if I should buy a GTX-Titan or a GTX-780. Another question was: one single card or a SLI with 2 cards?

 

The price difference here in Germany is really extreme between these two cards:

GTX-780 = 650 €

GTX-Titan = 980 €

 

Finally I have decided to buy one Titan because:

 

• My current GPUs make very much noise (5.8 sone instead of only 2.1) and warmth (2 x 312 watts instead of 250) in our living room.
  
• 6 GB GPU memory: so much GPU memory should be better in the future with the new forthcoming games.
  
• May be that Edge will also use more GPU memory. I don't believe that Edge will improve the performance but the quality of the graphics.
  
• All options in the DCS-World graphic settings and a high resolution (several monitors, AA ...) may need more than 3 GB GPU. This would lead to a very bad performance because in this case the GTX-780 will have to read from the main memory.
  
• May be that I want to play DCS-World in 3D (with our TV or with forthcoming VirtualGlasses/HelmetMountedDisplay). In this case I will also need twice of the GPU memory.
  
• My CPU will currently be able to feed only one Titan in the right way for DCS-World. I think 2 Titans will only be a waste of money at the moment.
  
• If I later want to improve the graphic processing performance I can do this by adding one or two Titans but I won't be able to increase the GPU memory.
  
• If there are currently 2 GTX-Titans or 2 GTX-780s the CPU will be the bottleneck of your system for DCS-World... but if Eagle would increase the CPU cores usage the GPU should become again important (CPU will be the bottleneck).
  
• I would say that it is logical that a 3D-simulation needs theoretical endless GPU memory.....
  

By the way: the manufacturer of my new Titan offers a 5 year warranty here for Europe.

 

I hope to get the card in the next days. Of course I will run again the benchmark and inform you.

Edited June 21, 2013 by GKOver

[xracer]

Yesterday I have ordered a Zotac GTX-Titan Amp! Edition for my computer (i7-2600) to replace my SLI 2 x GTX-295. I have bought these cards at the beginning of 2009.

 

Until yesterday I was always thinking if I should buy a GTX-Titan or a GTX-780. Another question was: one single card or a SLI with 2 cards?

 

The price difference here in Germany is really extreme between these two cards:

GTX-780 = 650 €

GTX-Titan = 980 €

 

Finally I have decided to buy one Titan because:

 

• My current GPUs make very much noise (5.8 sone instead of only 2.1) and warmth (2 x 312 watts instead of 250) in our living room.
  
• 6 GB GPU memory: so much GPU memory should be better in the future with the new forthcoming games.
  
• May be that Edge will also use more GPU memory. I don't believe that Edge will improve the performance but the quality of the graphics.
  
• All options in the DCS-World graphic settings and a high resolution (several monitors, AA ...) may need more than 3 GB GPU. This would lead to a very bad performance because in this case the GTX-780 will have to read from the main memory.
  
• May be that I want to play DCS-World in 3D (with our TV or with forthcoming VirtualGlasses/HelmetMountedDisplay). In this case I will also need twice of the GPU memory.
  
• My CPU will currently be able to feed only one Titan in the right way for DCS-World. I think 2 Titans will only be a waste of money at the moment.
  
• If I later want to improve the graphic processing performance I can do this by adding one or two Titans but I won't be able to increase the GPU memory.
  
• If there are currently 2 GTX-Titans or 2 GTX-780s the CPU will be the bottleneck of your system for DCS-World... but if Eagle would increase the CPU cores usage the GPU should become again important (CPU will be the bottleneck).
  
• I would say that it is logical that a 3D-simulation needs theoretical endless GPU memory.....
  

By the way: the manufacturer of my new Titan offers a 5 year warranty here for Europe.

 

I hope to get the card in the next days. Of course I will run again the benchmark and inform you.

 

Well done, GKOver. Yes the Titan is very expensive in Europe. I guess its best to forget as quickly as possible what you payd for it and just enjoy the performance. I hope you get pleased with it. As you mentioned noise, my old 5850 and 6850 sounded like a jet when they got loaded. This GTX i cant almost notice. Very good thing that too.

[_Dredd]

Titans are selling like hotcakes here in Australia which is interesting.. All major suppliers h ave resupplied and already sold out in two weeks. I was looking at I buying a second card but was waiting for my paycheck, now I have to wait another month for resupply. :(

[Erforce]

All my previous GPUs were like F16 turbine (noise + temp) in any 3D game. (1900XT/R4890/8800GT) They're dead by now.

Then i tried ASUS DCU2 with Nvidia 670 and ATI 7870.

I never heard my 670 and it never exceeded 70°c

I heard the 7870 and it exceeded 81°c

 

so, in the future, i will stick with Nvidia Asus DCU2, even if it's 50€ more than others brand.

But a Titan... well... maybe it's too much for that price. i would go for 2x770, (more screens, more fps in others games)

Anyway, congrat for this jewel

[GKOver]

After changing from 2 x GTX-295 to one GTX-Titan I got the following Performance values:

 

 

AVG FPS : 31 FPS

GRAPHICS CARD: GTX-Titan

CPU : i7-2600

CPU Utilization/Thread: max. 84%

 

MAIN MEMORY SIZE: 16GB

MEMORY USED : 26%

GPU Memory: 6 GB

GPU MEM USED: 22%

GPU Utilization: 80%

COMMENTS: It seems ..... that CPU and GPU are not totally used.

 

 

And after Overclocking the CPU:

AVG FPS : 36 FPS

GRAPHICS CARD: GTX-Titan

CPU : i7-2600 (overclocked from 3400 to 4100)

CPU Utilization/Thread: max. 83%

 

MAIN MEMORY SIZE: 16GB

MEMORY USED : 29%

GPU Memory: 6 GB

GPU MEM USED: 22%

GPU Utilization: 95%

COMMENTS: It seems that the GPU with the CPU OC is nearly totally utilized. Overclocking the CPU with a factor 1.20 improved the performance with a factor 1.16.

So an SLI with 2 x GTX-Titans wouldn't be a big improvement for my system because here (and in the test without Overclocking) the CPU is the bottleneck.

 

=> So if DCS World would support more CPU cores the bottleneck my graphic card would be again the bottleneck. With such a higher CPU core utilization a higher number of GTX-Titans would improve the performance dramatically!!!

 

Finally I now have a system that is 2 - 4 faster than the old one... :-)

Edited July 1, 2013 by GKOver