Marky3254 Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 (edited) Windows 7 64-bit MSI GTX 960 2GB (I should have brought 4GB of which I'm kicking myself about) MSI 970 Motherboard AMD FX-6300 Six-Core Processor, 3.50 GHz 16GB Ram Not the best system even for DCS v1.5 (usually between 40 and 60 FPS dependant on how many enemies etc with the occasional huge drop in FPS for no apparent reason). Being I'm on disability (and would rather not stare at a wall all day long) I do worry that DCS v2.5 is going to make a huge drop in FPS on my system because I can't afford to upgrade right now (£200 - £300 is a lot of money and £400 - £500 is out of the question) as I've only just upgraded and buying the expensive FC3, Gazelle and A-10C (about £90). So the question is, will DCS lumber along at low settings or render my outlay a waste? Edited September 4, 2016 by Marky3254 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art-J Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 I don't want to sound rude, but You'll need a crystal ball for that answer. How can anyone of us know? Devs might shed some light, but they're always tight-lipped about realistic hardware requirements. On one hand, 2.5 is supposed to be closer, performance-wise, to current 2.0, which seems to be taxing CPU and GPU in somewhat different proportions than 1.5; on the other, I'm worried how this abundance of extra trees we see on screenshots will affect the framerate. Not many of them on Nevada now, but the kill performance on Caucasus map. I'm thinking about upgrading my GFX card, but decided to do the only smart thing possible in this scenario - wait till the 2.5 is out and wait for other player's reports. i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marky3254 Posted September 4, 2016 Author Share Posted September 4, 2016 How would I know what everyone knows, that's why I asked? Well that's that then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangi Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 I think you will be ok, if you are happy to go a little lighter on eye candy you will still be able to get 40-60 fps, but it's just a guess and ultimately we won't know till it's here. PC: 6600K @ 4.5 GHz, 12GB RAM, GTX 970, 32" 2K monitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marky3254 Posted September 4, 2016 Author Share Posted September 4, 2016 I hope that's the case Rangi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitness88 Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Check out his video, it'll give you some ideas on how to tweak the DCS settings. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=173482 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom453 Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 To be honest I'm quietly confident that 2.5 will deliver quite reasonable performance. I get way better performance from DCS 2.0 than I do 1.5 and that includes while flying in and around Los Vegas. While the higher tree count may be an issue with the Caucasus map, I'm sure some slight setting tweaking, as mentioned by Rangi above, might just help. ED seems to be spending a lot of effort on maximising performance and working with new rendering methods aimed at performance improvement. Of course we'll just have to wait a little longer to find out for sure, but I do remember how pleasantly surprised many were (me included) at the performance DCS2.0 & NTTR delivered at release. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
112th_Rossi Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Your rig looks fine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cibit Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Your rig looks fine! Agreed, the one thing that may make an improvement for you and it isn't apparent from your post is an ssd. The prices are dropping all the time and while I am no expert and people will argue it only gives faster loading I found my experience was smoother gameplay, especially in MP. I also believe though may be wrong, SLI is performing better, another relatively inexpensive upgrade is a matching graphics card when prices drop and wallet permits:thumbup: i5 8600k@5.2Ghz, Asus Prime A Z370, 32Gb DDR4 3000, GTX1080 SC, Oculus Rift CV1, Modded TM Warthog Modded X52 Collective, Jetseat, W10 Pro 64 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Adding JTAC Guide //My Vid's//229th AHB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
112th_Rossi Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 SLI might be ok. Could prove problematic though. I would also say just an SSD as an upgrade. Keeping texture settings to medium to save on VRAM and things should be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMikeJuliet Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Also, as DCS is quite heavily dependent on CPU, you might want to try slight overclocking. Nothing major to require additional cooling or anything, but just a bit to squeeze a littke bit more frames. Otherwise your setup looks fine, and as long as it's over 30 fps it is still playable albeit not necessarily desirable... DCS Finland | SF squadron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom88 Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 The best thing about the current versions of DCS World is how adaptable they've made them,Shadows,textures,Visibility,traffic,shrubbery are all scalable to suit the users systems. Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nooch Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 2.5 should not run worse than what we have now. If anything it should only run better. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
112th_Rossi Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 2.5 should not run worse than what we have now. If anything it should only run better. Thats the theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drag0nWIng Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 this game is a single core game, fx6300's single thread is a little weak to this game, I think you can change the fx6300 to 4560, maybe a little better, but it's difficult to buy a nice look and good quality used CPU and MB in some place... the money is always a problem when the gamer wants to upgrade, I know that pain. and the ED sold cheap module on some steam region before, but now they stop to offer cheap code and change the price. It's a little pity. and GTX960 is good enough, however 4gb is better but not necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldsmack Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Like everyone else I agree that 2.5 "should" run better with all the new technology DX 11 and T4/T5 mesh. I also get better performance in 2.0 then 1.5 by a pretty significant amount. I am also in the same boat as you when it comes to spending $, but that's the great thing about PC's you can tailor your hardware to meet your budget requirements. You don't necessarily need an I7 with 1080s in SLI and 32G DDR4...but the option is there. And sales pop up all the time. I can't remember the last time I paid retail on any PC hardware or games (except a few DCS aircraft because I can't help myself :p) Windows 10 Pro 64, I5 4690k @4.6GHz with CAPTIAN 240EX AOI, Samsung 850 EVO ,G Skill Ripjaws 16G RAM, Nvidia GTX 970 STRIX, MSI Z97 GAMING 5, WD Blue 1TB HDD, Seasonic M12 II EVO psu, Track IR 5, Pro Flight X-55 Rhino H.O.T.A.S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
112th_Rossi Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 this game is a single core game, fx6300's single thread is a little weak to this game, I think you can change the fx6300 to 4560, maybe a little better, but it's difficult to buy a nice look and good quality used CPU and MB in some place... the money is always a problem when the gamer wants to upgrade, I know that pain. and the ED sold cheap module on some steam region before, but now they stop to offer cheap code and change the price. It's a little pity. and GTX960 is good enough, however 4gb is better but not necessary. Considering the fact that DCS never uses 100% of any core says to me that it'll be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marky3254 Posted September 5, 2016 Author Share Posted September 5, 2016 Thank you all for your replies. I've managed to find about another 8 FPS and I have some settings higher and one or two that were off are now on. It's pretty tricky getting the settings right... Even though I have some trepidation, I'm really looking forward to the update... Fingers crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansangb Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Thank you all for your replies. I've managed to find about another 8 FPS and I have some settings higher and one or two that were off are now on. It's pretty tricky getting the settings right... Even though I have some trepidation, I'm really looking forward to the update... Fingers crossed. Marky,do you use SSDs? hsb HW Spec in Spoiler --- i7-10700K Direct-To-Die/OC'ed to 5.1GHz, MSI Z490 MB, 32GB DDR4 3200MHz, EVGA 2080 Ti FTW3, NVMe+SSD, Win 10 x64 Pro, MFG, Warthog, TM MFDs, Komodo Huey set, Rverbe G1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marky3254 Posted September 7, 2016 Author Share Posted September 7, 2016 Marky,do you use SSDs? I do not hansangb. I don't know anything much about SSDs other than one or two people say they're good for sims/gaming. I've got 2 1/2 TB of hard disk space so SSDs will have to wait. Just eyeing the "Samsung 850 EVO 1 TB"... Want one. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
112th_Rossi Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 I do not hansangb. I don't know anything much about SSDs other than one or two people say they're good for sims/gaming. I've got 2 1/2 TB of hard disk space so SSDs will have to wait. Just eyeing the "Samsung 850 EVO 1 TB"... Want one. :) Biggest performance bang per buck. By far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansangb Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 (edited) Remember, you don't need to put everything on SSD. Just Windows and DCS. Everything else can go on physical/magnetic disks. So 256GB is plenty. Again, Windows and DCS, everything else goes on the physical platter. Let me ask you a questions, are you in a position to be able to reinstall Windows? Do you have a free SATA port open (higher throughput one, if you can spare it). If you do, please PM me. Edited September 9, 2016 by hansangb hsb HW Spec in Spoiler --- i7-10700K Direct-To-Die/OC'ed to 5.1GHz, MSI Z490 MB, 32GB DDR4 3200MHz, EVGA 2080 Ti FTW3, NVMe+SSD, Win 10 x64 Pro, MFG, Warthog, TM MFDs, Komodo Huey set, Rverbe G1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMikeJuliet Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 The things you need to know about SSDs are two: 1. You'll cut your Windows startup time in half if not better and your antivirus software (if you install it on the SSD) will never again slow your PC down 2. When an SSD breaks, it breaks completely. Physical drives might still work partly or be recovered, but an SSD is all or nothing, so don't rely on it as permanent storage. No problem with windows since you can just buy a new SSD and install your OS again, but your saves, music, videos, pictures and documents are best saved somewhere else. On a side note, my SSD is now 4 and a half years old and not a hitch. DCS Finland | SF squadron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts