GPU or CPU?

[Castor Troy]

Congrats: very nice rig. I agree that your next sensible upgrade would be another 16GB of RAM for 32GB total. Most applications will not use that much but I have 32 and I noticed that DCS uses a lot of RAM. I think that it preloads maps into RAM. You might also upgrade your rig with the best aircooler out there: Noctua's NH-U12A. You might think it a downgrade from a 240 AIO, but it is not... it outperforms 360 AIOs. About $80-100 I think.

 

The machine is out for delivery as of now. I am refreshing the tracking number every five minutes. LoL.

 

I do have some concern over the 2080 RTX, I am reading, and seeing vids on YouTube, that an alarming amount, are going belly up after a few hours of use. It is warranted for 3 years, but I don't want it to fail. I have a 1060 6 gig I can throw in it if it fails, until I get a replacement. Fingers crossed I won't have issues with the 2080.

 

Will report performance when I get this thing up and running later today.

[Strikeeagle345]

The machine is out for delivery as of now. I am refreshing the tracking number every five minutes. LoL.

 

I do have some concern over the 2080 RTX, I am reading, and seeing vids on YouTube, that an alarming amount, are going belly up after a few hours of use. It is warranted for 3 years, but I don't want it to fail. I have a 1060 6 gig I can throw in it if it fails, until I get a replacement. Fingers crossed I won't have issues with the 2080.

 

Will report performance when I get this thing up and running later today.

 

I think that was the early runs of the 2080 and 2080ti. Im sure you will be fine. :thumbup:

[Harlikwin]

I am playing DCS with a 3770K a 970 and a rift, after I shut the game down, I check MSI afterburner and the 970 is maxing out while the 3770K doesn't even hit 35 percent usage. I am holding off upgrading my card as the prices are insulting (I will probably get a 2070 when they drop under 380 GBP). So at the moment I am patiently awaiting the terrain updates. IMO to answer your opening question a 2070 would be better for you now, see how you go and then you can build a new rig around that.

 

You are misunderstanding CPU usage. DCS is basically single core which gets bounced around so on a 4 core system you will see 25%=100% for DCS plus another core with some usage for sound and a few other things that DCS does do multicore.

 

So what you are seeing is 100% on your CPU for DCS, and 100% on your GPU. I wouldn't be too surprised if you don't see a huge improvement with a 2070 since you will likely be CPU limited at that point.

[silentbob11]

So. do you guys think that my 650W PSU will be sufficient for a 9700K+RTX2070+16GB RAM+500GB SSD card+ 2 500GB old HDisks + WARTHOG HOTAS?

 

For my current rig (see specs below) it's more than enough, but will bumping up CPU, RAM and GPU require a beefier PSU? I hoooopeee nottt....:(

 

SB11

[msalama]

my 650W PSU will be sufficient

 

I'm afraid not. I'd buy a 1kW PSU if I were you.

[silentbob11]

I'm afraid not. I'd buy a 1kW PSU if I were you.

 

PSU calculator says 500W is enough for my new rig...:wassat::hmm:

[vonbane]

So. do you guys think that my 650W PSU will be sufficient for a 9700K+RTX2070+16GB RAM+500GB SSD card+ 2 500GB old HDisks + WARTHOG HOTAS?

 

For my current rig (see specs below) it's more than enough, but will bumping up CPU, RAM and GPU require a beefier PSU? I hoooopeee nottt....:(

 

SB11

 

I have an 850W with a nearly identical setup.

[Waxer]

So. do you guys think that my 650W PSU will be sufficient for a 9700K+RTX2070+16GB RAM+500GB SSD card+ 2 500GB old HDisks + WARTHOG HOTAS?

SB11

 

650W is a bare minimum for the MB, CPU and GPU you have. Typical of manufacture pre builds... they get away with the minimum they can on a secondary specification that people might not pay too much attention to. Basically with 650W you will be okay, but really should not be looking to overclock at all.

 

Like the OP said, 850W is a nice upgrade to what you have. I would spend the extra to get at least Gold certified PSU. Good brands are EVGA, Seasonic, some of the Corsair RMi and AXi models and Superflower. That will give you 1) some overclocking ability headroom, 2) longevity as the PSU will not be running flat out and 3) potentially greater system stability once the rig starts to age a bit.

 

650W currently... dont sweat it... you already did a massive upgrade from your old rig. But next time you upgrade something that should be on the list.

[Castor Troy]

Well I was going to upgrade, but the cost in doing so, I thought it would be smarter to just get a whole new rig. So I did.

 

I just got into DCS a few months ago, mainly because of the F-14, so as of now, DCS, for me, is F-14 simulator.

 

Anyway, my current, and soon to be donated machine, consists of a i5-4590, GTX 1060 6gb, 8 gigs of RAM, and a HDD. The experience is not so good. Load times are about 10 minutes, from starting the sim, to getting into a mission. With some annoying stutters and framedrops.

 

I just purchased a pre-built last night, should be here Friday of this post. (the day after tomorrow!) I copied and pasted the main specs off the receipt. I am pretty sure I will notice a huge difference. Hopefully......

 

Intel® Core™ Processor i7-9700K

GEIL Super Luce 16GB (8GBx2) DDR4/3000MHz RGB MEMORY

ASRock Z390 Phantom Gaming 4

GIGABYTE GeForce® RTX 2080 8GB GDDR6

ATNG 1000Watts 80 Plus Gold Power Supply

MasterLiquid Lite 120mm ARGB CPU Liquid Cooler with Dual Chamber Pump & Copper Cold Plate

 

I paid $1600 dollars, with free 2 day shipping. I am going to get another 16 gigs of RAM for it soon, very soon.

 

I received the machine yesterday, after getting things set up, trouble shooting a few minor details, I finally got to play around a few minutes in DCS. Lemme just say this, Oh....baby!

 

I have almost every detail set to the highest, and pushing 60 steady fps on a carrier in the PG. It may dip to around 56 looking around, but once airborne, its a steady 60. Vegas, was a fps KILLER for my old rig, like 25 with low detail. Getting the same high performance on the ground at Nellis as I do on the carrier full of parked aircraft in the PG, as well as solid frames in the sky.

 

I have to force V sync on my card, I use the fast option, and notice no screen tearing with it. When using the ingame v sync, my fps are stuck at 30 FPS. No matter what settings. Not sure why.

 

BTW, I am using the mirrors for the first time in the F-14, and I can't stop admiring myself in those mirrors. LoL. The level of detail of the pilot in the reflections, is amazing.

[Demon_]

So. do you guys think that my 650W PSU will be sufficient for a 9700K+RTX2070+16GB RAM+500GB SSD card+ 2 500GB old HDisks + WARTHOG HOTAS?

 

For my current rig (see specs below) it's more than enough, but will bumping up CPU, RAM and GPU require a beefier PSU? I hoooopeee nottt....:(

 

SB11

Yes, 650w is enough for a GTX2070. How old is your PSU? What model?

[Demon_]

Tips: Look at the warranty of the PSU to know how good he is.

Garbage PSU= 3 years

Cheap PSU= 5 years

Good PSU= 7 years

Very good= 10 years

Hulk= 12+ years

[silentbob11]

It's a 4 years old EVGA I think. Did a pretty good job up to now...:punk:

 

SB11

[msalama]

PSU calculator says 500W is enough for my new rig...

 

Could be, but that's really stressing it, plus PSUs lose some of their nominal power anyway as they age. So I'd still want to be on the safe side and get a beefier unit if I were you.

[Mr_Burns]

as I'm about to upgrade... again... would like to know

what will have a better effect on DCS world - frame rate wise - a stronger RAMier GPU or a beefier CPU?

 

thanx SB11

 

 

I run a similar rig, i7 2600k AMD Radeon R9 200 and 16GB DDR3 and I fly happily in 1080p but just checking the GPU-Z and Task Manager has my CPU at 33% with the old R9 at 98%.

 

 

I was going to upgrade the whole rig as it is long overdue but I might just stick in a second hand 1080Ti or something and save up a bit more!

[silentbob11]

I run a similar rig, i7 2600k AMD Radeon R9 200 and 16GB DDR3 and I fly happily in 1080p but just checking the GPU-Z and Task Manager has my CPU at 33% with the old R9 at 98%.

 

 

I was going to upgrade the whole rig as it is long overdue but I might just stick in a second hand 1080Ti or something and save up a bit more!

 

I can see your point, and I can fly 1080 quite well most of the time with HIGH settings, trouble is when it gets busy (carrier deck, airports, furballs, large cities overfly etc.) FPS drops down to low 20's and that sucks...:smilewink:

plus it's been long time overdue as you said...

 

SB11

[BrzI]

I went from a GTX 970 to a GTX 1080Ti.

 

 

The difference is astounding.

 

 

DCS seems to be more of a GPU than a CPU hog - unlike P3D.

[silentbob11]

I went from a GTX 970 to a GTX 1080Ti.

 

 

The difference is astounding.

 

 

DCS seems to be more of a GPU than a CPU hog - unlike P3D.

 

:thumbup:

Whats your CPU, RAM and other hardware? what res are you playing with? these can have a huge effect on your performance

 

SB11

[gavagai]

I will reluctantly repeat the advice you've seen here. Upgrading my GPU was a much larger performance gain than upgrading my CPU and ram (for DCS, other applications will vary).

 

Your CPU is ancient, but it still has legs (it's a sandy bridge, after all). It's like a professional athlete in his mid thirties.

 

P.S. the 24" display should be upgraded with the GPU. You will be astounded.

[BrzI]

:thumbup:

Whats your CPU, RAM and other hardware? what res are you playing with? these can have a huge effect on your performance

 

SB11

 

 

4770K with 24GB RAM running 180Ti at 3440x1600 resolution...

High settings that never go below 60 FPS in the F18 when on the ground.

 

 

I feel no need to upgrade my CPU (3 or more years old now)

[NineLine]

Little late to the party, but I just updated here, and as my GPU took a little longer than my CPU, I was able to see the difference from my old setup which was an i7 4970k with 32Gigs of RAM to a i7-9700k, with still using my 1070 (which is a decent card on its own) I saw the settings that best worked with the old CPU now blazing fast with the new one, but pushing everything to the highest caused me to see similar FPS as I did with the old CPU, if that makes sense.

 

Once my 2080Ti came, well all bets were off then, I can run pretty much everything full blast now. :)

 

This is with a 4k setup, and VR is just crazy good now.

[Strikeeagle345]

I will reluctantly repeat the advice you've seen here. Upgrading my GPU was a much larger performance gain than upgrading my CPU and ram (for DCS, other applications will vary).

 

Your CPU is ancient, but it still has legs (it's a sandy bridge, after all). It's like a professional athlete in his mid thirties.

 

P.S. the 24" display should be upgraded with the GPU. You will be astounded.

 

DCS is very CPU dependent. If your CPU isn't fast enough to push frames to your GPU you will not do so well. His CPU is not new enough to make the most of DCS. I have a similar CPU he did, then jumped to a 9700K and saw a MASSIVE boost in FPS without even touching my GPU.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Strikeeagle345

[NineLine]

When I was looking at an upgrade and thought I might only be able to get one or the other, I talked to the ED IT guy that orders the devs machines, and he recommended the GPU first, and CPU later, but said that the GPU could be limited by my older CPU. I had a decent GPU originally, so I probably could have been happy with just the CPU upgrade (and memory).

[Pikey]

I'm going to be different here and I looked at the specs of the OP and saw an old i7 2700. I remember upgrading from an OC i5 2500K to an 8600K coffee lake.

 

 

The difference in DCS was large, tangible in pure FPS it was 10-30% and more on large complex missions. I didn't understand it well enough at the time. My old black i5 was touching 3.5 clock. My new coffeelake was hitting over 4.0 without clock changes and had a lot more of whatever DCS needed.

 

 

Im not going to claim that CPU is always the best, it's not, and GPU is more flexible in other uses not just in DCS, but what the OP is talking about based on specs is not upgrading an old DDR3 board+CPU with RAM timer under 2000!!? over any GPU and keeping that bottleneck, so I disagree with the first page of this posts replies, entirely and would do the same again, even after seeing a 960 vs a 1070 GTX.

[Harlikwin]

Well, I think part of the problem is people think about CPU in terms of GHZ and possibly core number.

 

The reality is things like more/faster L1, L3 chache, faster motherboard memory and a bunch of other things give newer CPU's more "crunch" power than just raw GHZ. That being said, you probably won't see much difference between an i8 vs i9 proc, but going from an i4 to a i9 was a massive performance improvement as was the GPU upgrade.

[BitMaster]

If you read those Intel CPU's reviews for a couple years, generation after generation, there are some crucial improvements that came over time, from 1st gen to 2nd gen, 2nd gen to 4th gen and then 4th to 6th gen and finally 6thgen to 7/8/9th gen. Not only did DDR memory get more responsive and more bandwidth, also the internals got smoother, idle to full clock ramp up speed.

 

I went from a 2600k at 5G to a 6700k with 4.8G and it was a lot better overall, then shortly after got a 7700k 5G for a year and loved it, great CPU and platform but then went to a 8700k with 5.2G, which I run at 5G as itmakes almost zero difference with a 1080ti. imho, 7thgen and later are very nice CPU's. Fast and snappy, great for gaming.

 

But tbh, I'd now buy AMD.