7600K still good?

Hi everyone. currently i have a 7600K overclocked at 4,8Ghz with a Aorus GTX 1080ti.

I play at 1440p 60Hz.

My cpu is still good for DCS?

4 core are sufficient? or i should switch to a 7700K for 4core/8 threads? (i'd want to mantain my z270 system)

Good?

LOL, i still have a 2500k running DCS more than fine.

yes, you're right. but i've read almost everywhere that 4-core are not sufficient anymore in 2018.

i don't play other games a lot.

i play almost only DCS.

I think four cores is fine for DCS-at least until Vulcan implementation . As we say in southern 'murica , "don't fix it if it ain't broke" :)

I think four cores is fine for DCS-at least until Vulcan implementation . As we say in southern 'murica , don't fix it if it ain't broke :)

:lol: very funny :lol:

Number of cores shouldn't help that much and yes it's good but you know best yourself of course :D

7600K still good?

i've read almost everywhere that 4-core are not sufficient anymore in 2018.

not true.

the reality is that almost no software uses more than 4 cores. and most only 1 or 2.

i would suggest that you be more careful where you get your advice.

yes, you're right. but i've read almost everywhere that 4-core are not sufficient anymore in 2018.

i don't play other games a lot.

i play almost only DCS.

For DCS alone - for the time being - an i5 quadcore is fine, although the higher the clock frequency the better depending on gpu load.

Pretty much any dx9, dx10, or dx 11 title is going to be mostly about the performance of a single core.

When DCS starts using vulkan, it may be another story all together. But there's no telling when that's coming. DX12 and vulkan titles put load on all 12 threads of my 8700k.

Hi everyone. currently i have a 7600K overclocked at 4,8Ghz with a Aorus GTX 1080ti.

 

I play at 1440p 60Hz.

 

My cpu is still good for DCS?

 

4 core are sufficient? or i should switch to a 7700K for 4core/8 threads? (i'd want to mantain my z270 system)

As good as any. Like any other game, DCS doesn't care what kind of CPU you have, as long as it's about 4.0 GHz or faster and has at least four cores, you're good to go. Core i3, i5, i7, i9, don't matter. DCS seems to like 4 cores, more probably doesn't make any difference.

I once had DCS running quite well on an old Core 2 Quad Q9650 machine at 3.6 GHz. Asus P5Q mobo and 8GB DDR2. Only the video card held it back.

I currently have an i5-6600K (4 cores/threads, 4.5 GHz) and it's great. I won't be getting a new CPU for a very long time. Actually, I recently got a GTX 1080 Ti, and DCS World can still bottleneck on the graphics card, not my "ancient" i5 CPU :)

AD

For DCS alone - for the time being - an i5 quadcore is fine...

***

When DCS starts using vulkan, it may be another story all together. But there's no telling when that's coming. DX12 and vulkan titles put load on all 12 threads of my 8700k.

Way I see it, if it runs fine now on 4 cores/threads, it'll run even better when ED gets the Vulkan API implemented. It's supposed to have less overhead than DirectX. I wouldn't hold my breath though, this kind of thing can take more than a while.

I recall ED stating that they had already finished the main code for Vulkan, but now they had to write all the shaders--and that sort of thing takes forever and a month.

AD

not true.

 

the reality is that almost no software uses more than 4 cores. and most only 1 or 2.

 

i would suggest that you be more careful where you get your advice.

Yesssss! Solid advice here folks!

Gamers are going ga-ga over all this new 8-core 16-thread stuff, for the life of me I don't know why.

AD

I'm hoping ED will be able to offload much more once the graphics engine is separated from the simulation engine. This perhaps will allow ED much more head room for things like ground radar F/A-18 and F-16 and allow for a LARGE dynamic campaign running in the background and very LARGE multiplayer missions with hundreds of AI and players.

What would DCS and servers need for that.....

For now and perhaps the next few years my 4 core 7700K will be fine. Once ED has full Vulkan support and LARGE dynamic campaigns, maybe not. Have to wait and see.

.

Yesssss! Solid advice here folks!

 

 

Gamers are going ga-ga over all this new 8-core 16-thread stuff, for the life of me I don't know why.

 

 

AD

I'm guessing it looks impressive when bench testing and soforth, I must admit when rendering stuff watching all cores hit near on 100% makes the extra cost of the CPU etc kinda worth it. ;)

As for OP you've got 4.8GHz which ought be enough to feed any of the current GPU's happily.

Thank you to all.

I appreciate your advices.

Gamers are going ga-ga over all this new 8-core 16-thread stuff, for the life of me I don't know why.

........

 

As for OP you've got 4.8GHz which ought be enough to feed any of the current GPU's happily.

Actually, if you play at 1440p as I do, I have seen my CPU bottlenecking at 5G, my GPU was stuck at 87%. Clocked the CPU 200MHz further towards 5.2G yielded 94% GPU Load. Not even 5.2G could max out a 1080ti with certain settings maps & modules ( HIGH/EXTREME LOD btw )....not a 2080ti !.

The GPUs are running away from the CPU cores :music_whistling:

Yesssss! Solid advice here folks!

 

 

Gamers are going ga-ga over all this new 8-core 16-thread stuff, for the life of me I don't know why.

 

 

AD

The main appeal of 8th gen and 9th gen cpu's for gaming is their ability to overclock, if not having the fastest out of the box CPU clockspeeds we've seen to date. But again we'll be seeing the highest gains in dx12 and vulkan. I don't mention title names here due to forum rules but there's even one company using AVX operations in their coding, which would max out even 8c/16T.

As vulkan and dx12 become the norm, more cores should = more performance. There are already titles out there maxing out quadcores to the point that the only upgrade route is more cores, or a cpu with hyperthreading.

But we all know how that works.. by the time developers start using dx12 commonly we'll be ready for the next version of windows :P

So there's no disagreement, that in a dx11 title like DCS, going from a 7600K to a new intel CPU won't see much in the ways of gain especially if the 7600K is overclocked significantly. But Vulkan will likely show a much bigger gap between a 7600K and say an 8700k. I'm not saying a 7600k wont provide acceptable performance for some peoples' needs. That remains to be seen regarding Vulkan implementation into DCS.

Just stating what I've experienced in titles that use dx12 or vulkan.. where all 12 threads of my CPU seem to get equal usage spread among physical and logical cores. Reading the forums for some of these titles are kind of amusing, where "YOUR GAME IS MELTING MY CPU", indicating insufficient cooling when something actually puts 100% load on their cpu, titles that only push my CPU to 50%.

None of this information changes that my answer to the OP is that he's fine sticking with his 7600K for the purpose of DCS for now. Could be worth revisiting the idea whenever ED tells us vulkan is ready, depending on what kind of CPU load we see from it. There's also no one size fits all answer for hardware in the long run with different resolutions and display types. Preferences which may change for any given pilot over time.

The main appeal of 8th gen and 9th gen cpu's for gaming is their ability to overclock, if not having the fastest out of the box CPU clockspeeds we've seen to date. But again we'll be seeing the highest gains in dx12 and vulkan. I don't mention title names here due to forum rules but there's even one company using AVX operations in their coding, which would max out even 8c/16T.

 

As vulkan and dx12 become the norm, more cores should = more performance. There are already titles out there maxing out quadcores to the point that the only upgrade route is more cores, or a cpu with hyperthreading.

 

But we all know how that works.. by the time developers start using dx12 commonly we'll be ready for the next version of windows :P

 

So there's no disagreement, that in a dx11 title like DCS, going from a 7600K to a new intel CPU won't see much in the ways of gain especially if the 7600K is overclocked significantly. But Vulkan will likely show a much bigger gap between a 7600K and say an 8700k. I'm not saying a 7600k wont provide acceptable performance for some peoples' needs. That remains to be seen regarding Vulkan implementation into DCS.

 

Just stating what I've experienced in titles that use dx12 or vulkan.. where all 12 threads of my CPU seem to get equal usage spread among physical and logical cores. Reading the forums for some of these titles are kind of amusing, where "YOUR GAME IS MELTING MY CPU", indicating insufficient cooling when something actually puts 100% load on their cpu, titles that only push my CPU to 50%.

 

None of this information changes that my answer to the OP is that he's fine sticking with his 7600K for the purpose of DCS for now. Could be worth revisiting the idea whenever ED tells us vulkan is ready, depending on what kind of CPU load we see from it. There's also no one size fits all answer for hardware in the long run with different resolutions and display types. Preferences which may change for any given pilot over time.

^This

"Your game melts my CPU"...don't we all wish we'd say that :D

ok, at this time i've decided to not change my cpu.

but i found an used oculus rift for a good price, and i'd like to try a vr experience (never tried before).

Are my 7600k overclocked and my 1080ti able to manage an oculus rift sufficiently?

Are my 7600k overclocked and my 1080ti able to manage an oculus rift sufficiently?

it works for the rest of us.

and some of us have even less hardware.

ok, at this time i've decided to not change my cpu.

but i found an used oculus rift for a good price, and i'd like to try a vr experience (never tried before).

Are my 7600k overclocked and my 1080ti able to manage an oculus rift sufficiently?

you'll probably end up running supersampling, and limiting yourself to 45fps with ASW or whatever occulus uses for motion reprojection. Sometimes I get 90 fps in DCS but usually far away from any cities lol, and it's just for a moment. I'm fine with it though. WMR Motion Reprojection is doing a fine job, and being able to turn up the pixel density and run 2x msaa is lovely.

it works for the rest of us.

 

and some of us have even less hardware.

thanks :thumbup:

you'll probably end up running supersampling, and limiting yourself to 45fps with ASW or whatever occulus uses for motion reprojection. Sometimes I get 90 fps in DCS but usually far away from any cities lol, and it's just for a moment. I'm fine with it though. WMR Motion Reprojection is doing a fine job, and being able to turn up the pixel density and run 2x msaa is lovely.

i'm totally noob with vr.

so i have to learn almost everything about it's use

i'm totally noob with vr.

so i have to learn almost everything about it's use

It's an awesome experience. Don't be scared ;)

Take it easy, I have it for almost a year now and still cannot overcome this damn sickness every 15-25min in VR.

On the other hand, it's too tempting to not try again, that good it is, despite the minecraft sized pixels :)