i7/i5 vs gpu and bottlenecking

[gavagai]

I've saved up cash for a new system and I've been pondering how to get the most for my money with DCS. What I've noticed with DCS right now is that I am definitely limited by my gpu and not my cpu. This is easy enough to detect when I try different resolutions and texture settings.

 

I would like to run DCS in 4k. Disregarding other components, suppose my budget is a decision between an i7 with a gtx1060 (6gb vram), or an i5 with a gtx1070 (8gb vram). In the past I thought I would definitely go with the i7 for my next build, but now I am not sure it would be the best choice.

 

I've been reading the forums and trying to do my research, but it would be nice to hear some opinions that are specific to my case. Thank you.

[firmek]

If it's mostly an gaming PC get an i5 and 1070. You'll benefit much more from better GPU with more RAM. Though, 4K may be too much for this config. Did you consider a wide screen - 3440x1440?

[Demon_]

i5 7600K. DCS don't use the hyper threading techno. You need a CPU cooler. 16GB or 32GB of RAM.

4K tv? You need a lot of VRAM. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gpus,4380.html

Edited January 15, 2017 by Demon_

[PureEvil]

maybe new GPU alone will be enough? some hi-end nvidia card.

[gavagai]

Thanks for the advice. I could just add more ram and a higher end gpu, but then I'm pushing 5 years on this build.

 

Whatever I decide, I'll stick to the 8gb 1070 as a minimum for the gpu.

[Pilotasso]

I also got a 2500K and in search of a replacement. Except I will need multi-threading as DCS is not my only game.

 

So my requirement differential to yours is only the number of logical cores for the CPU.

 

At this time 8GB is not enough, and the speed of DD3 RAM is severely limiting when overclocking the CPU at 4+ GHZ is involved.

At this time Intel is overcharging their hardware, even I5's to a premium price due to lack of competition from AMD however if you can wait a month all this will change.

 

AMD is about to release the new RYZEN architecture and rumours have it that will be competitive IPC wise but at lower prices.

At this time I would wait a few more weeks until prices are announced but as mentioned you should be able to spend less on CPU+motherboard and more on the GPU. Speaking of which the new AMD VEGA architecture is tailored torwards 4K and shouldnt be too pricey compared to NVIDIA counterparts.

 

The current intel+NVIDIA options are pricey and thechnically limited when you consider what you get for the buck if you want to stay on a sane budget limit.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Pilotasso

[gavagai]

I hadn't even considered an AMD cpu because of the trends over the last 10 years. After reading your post, I will wait to see what independent reviewers have to say. At the very least you are probably right that prices for intel will drop a bit.

[gavagai]

Money was burning a hole in my pocked and I upgraded my gpu only to see the effect. The 1070 runs DCS in 4k at 60fps most of the time, but does drop a bit over dense cities, especially Las Vegas. Over all the difference is breath-taking!

 

I'm going to do some more tinkering and consider my next purchases carefully. This 2500k ages very well, and I have to compare a new mb/cpu purchase to a paltry $50 for 8gb of additional ram.

[BitMaster]

I also got a 2500K and in search of a replacement. Except I will need multi-threading as DCS is not my only game.

 

So my requirement differential to yours is only the number of logical cores for the CPU.

 

At this time 8GB is not enough, and the speed of DD3 RAM is severely limiting when overclocking the CPU at 4+ GHZ is involved.

At this time Intel is overcharging their hardware, even I5's to a premium price due to lack of competition from AMD however if you can wait a month all this will change.

 

AMD is about to release the new RYZEN architecture and rumours have it that will be competitive IPC wise but at lower prices.

At this time I would wait a few more weeks until prices are announced but as mentioned you should be able to spend less on CPU+motherboard and more on the GPU. Speaking of which the new AMD VEGA architecture is tailored torwards 4K and shouldnt be too pricey compared to NVIDIA counterparts.

 

The current intel+NVIDIA options are pricey and thechnically limited when you consider what you get for the buck if you want to stay on a sane budget limit.

 

 

The RAM does not hinder the CPU to oc to as high as the core may go.

 

The correlation you refer to is not present on "K" chips as they have independant clocks, the later the Generation the better those clocks work alone by themselves ( more or less ).

 

 

Rule by thumb actually is to leave DDR3/4 at default and oc the core, then when you stabilised it you work the RAM, ALONE.

 

The achievable RAM speed does correlate to the perfection of your die, as the memory controller is embedded in the CPU since at least the i3/5/7-Series ( C2D I think too ).

 

No, RAM speed wont hinder core oc at all afaict.

[Hadwell]

I'm using a 2600K...

 

looking at a Z270 chipset build with a 7700K, i hear they pretty easily get to 5GHz, some up to 5.2GHz, 16GB 4266 DDR4 ram an m.2 SSD, plus a GTX1080 should be over all better enough to make it worth an upgrade... but it's about a 3000$ build...

 

i don't think it's worth upgrading from an i5 2500k if you're not going to get at least what im looking at...

 

and yes, i'm waiting for the new amd cpus to become available, hopefully bring intel prices down a bit...

Edited January 29, 2017 by Hadwell

[BitMaster]

I'm using a 2600K...

 

looking at a Z270 chipset build with a 7700K, i hear they pretty easily get to 5GHz, some up to 5.2GHz, 16GB 4266 DDR4 ram an m.2 SSD, plus a GTX1080 should be over all better enough to make it worth an upgrade... but it's about a 3000$ build...

 

i don't think it's worth upgrading from an i5 2500k if you're not going to get at least what im looking at...

 

+1 !

 

Having such a CPU like you do and then stepping down to a stock-clocked 7700k would be a disaster.

 

You'd be 0% faster 6 years and 1000€ spent LoL

 

When you come from a golden thing the show is hard to keep at that high level.

 

My two 6700k barely made it past the landmark my 2600k put up top on the list !!!

[gavagai]

It seems so strange that 5 year old CPUs are still competitive. That would not have been the case 5 years ago.

 

I should have upgraded my gpu (and ram) a year ago instead of saving for a completely new build. I'm skeptical that I would see much improvement for DCS.

 

Thank you for the discussion.

[Demon_]

Because Intel has no competition. Get a decent aftermarket cooler to clock at 4.5ghz.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Demon_

[BitMaster]

I just ordered the Asus Prime-A budget board and an i7-7700K + 32GB 3600 XMP RAM CL16 4x8.

 

If that won't do it we can only hope for AMD to bring it on !

 

Actually, for my personal POV, if this 4th build also bricks I will get another refund and wait for Ryzen and move on to Gigabyte. That would then be my last Asus and my last Intel for a LONG time to come, hands down.

 

Next thing then would be a 2080GTX...maybe. I am actually pretty happy with the 980GTX and NTTR so far and money wise...jeeez...that 980 GTX would have to last a decade to pay off ;)

[Kev2go]

I've saved up cash for a new system and I've been pondering how to get the most for my money with DCS. What I've noticed with DCS right now is that I am definitely limited by my gpu and not my cpu. This is easy enough to detect when I try different resolutions and texture settings.

 

I would like to run DCS in 4k. Disregarding other components, suppose my budget is a decision between an i7 with a gtx1060 (6gb vram), or an i5 with a gtx1070 (8gb vram). In the past I thought I would definitely go with the i7 for my next build, but now I am not sure it would be the best choice.

 

I've been reading the forums and trying to do my research, but it would be nice to hear some opinions that are specific to my case. Thank you.

 

 

 

with the current setup i have, it runs just well enough on 1440P (upgraded from a 1080P monitor) . Can run everything on High, yes, with x2 MSSA, x16 Ansiotrophy, I have no regrets , not buying a 4k monitor, especially since at the time i couldnt find one that had both a 1m/s response time or 120-144hz refresh rate. It runs Smoothly in small missions or empty map. But when youve got a really big campaign ( or playing in MP), I still get some FPS dips in certain moments. Recently i started playing the F5E aggressor campaign and when i spawn at nellis with all those aircraft assets, i literally had 38 FPS at one point.

 

At this point im thinking there's only so much Raw GPU or CPU power will do, I guess it just needs to be optimized better. Don't get me wrong, DX11 rendered DCS still runs smoother than it did with DX9 (even back when i still had my amd 280x), but its still not perfect when you have large missions or campaigns.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Kev2go

[Mking]

I have the 1080 gtx palit gamerock. Playing on 3440 with extreme settings, and runs smooth with 2.0. Greets mike

[tintifaxl]

It seems so strange that 5 year old CPUs are still competitive. That would not have been the case 5 years ago.

 

I bought the i5 2500k in 01/2011.

[OldE24]

Because Intel has no competition. Get a decent aftermarket cooler to clock at 4.5ghz.

 

you dont even need a good cooler, i have a 2600k@ 4.5 that doesnt break 65C with a Hyper 212 in push/pull.

[dooom]

you dont even need a good cooler, i have a 2600k@ 4.5 that doesnt break 65C with a Hyper 212 in push/pull.

 

same with mine... my 2600K has been hititng 4.3 GHz on a stock cooler for about 3 years now. i just bumped my DDR3 up to 32 with a recent sale i found and snagged a 1070. i suppose i should upgrade the CPU sometime but I just have not found cause to yet.