Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[W0W66]

I have a been looking into a system build for someone who is interested in IL-2, and eventually the newer games with buttery smooth VR.  I wish il-2 1946 had vr. Oh well. IR  head tracking it is.

I've spent a fair bit of time researching and looking. Lots of contradictory stuff.  Pcpartpicker.ca is my home screen. j/k

I am looking at the following:

AMD 2600X.  Intel is $$$
MSI B450 Carbon pro AC
16 GB Aegis ram ddr4-3000
GPU nvidia 1060 or 1070?

Things to think about:
1) Next gen AMD chips. Worth waiting?
3) System outlined above, is it overkill, or will it be okay for the next few il-2 new games?
4) Continuing advancements in VR systems.
5) Is VR worth it with the newer games? I've looked on youtube, and can not tell.

Thoughts, suggestions, ideas?

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

These things really depend on the desired monitor resolution and the possibility of VR.

The 2600X is a fine chip with excellent value, but it suffers in VR due to poor single thread performance (stereo rendering has extra CPU overhead). Highly clocked Intel CPUs give a better chance of “buttery smooth VR”. That difference becomes almost irrelevant on a monitor. New AMD chips are coming, and they’ll certainly have improvements. However, it’s all rumours until we see the specs and prices. It all depends on your tolerance for waiting.

At 1080p resolution, the GTX 1060 6 GB version is a strong performer, but the 1070 is much more powerful. It’s worth comparing the prices of the new GTX 1660 Ti cards, as they may be a better value. However, be aware that these cards are “entry-level” for VR; I’d consider the 1070 to be the minimum for an enjoyable VR experience in Great Battles.

The outlined system (assuming at least a 6 GB 1060) is great for 1080p resolution at high settings. It will probably deliver solid performance for a few years. For VR, the CPU and GPU are already borderline inadequate.

VR is a completely different experience that cannot be understood from videos. It’s like sitting in an actual cockpit vs looking at a picture if you can get over the few quirks. However, the large hardware investment required means that it’s not for everyone. The cost of being at the bleeding edge is frequent upgrades and unpredictable performance.

[W0W66]

Thank you Mitthrawnuruodo.

Hmm, well, back to the drawing board I guess.

Looking at an I7-k something now after reading some threads on various sites. But oh the budget.  I looked at I5's, like a 9600k but, future demands have me a bit leery.

And now to find  a decent board as well.

1st world problems.

I think a section to help ppl choose better hardware may be an idea??

[bomberkiller]

GPU nvidia 1060 or 1070?

1070! 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

You might have more success on the Sturmovik forum; there's always people testing stuff and running benchmarks. They'd certainly provide more advice.

That said, don't get too bogged down by the hardware intricacies. The formula for good VR performance in most of these games is quite simple. You just need to get a few modern cores running as fast as possible. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html correlates very well with game performance (at stock frequencies!). If you're into overclocking, a 9600K can match any i7 or i9, so it's not necessarily a bad choice.

Again, none of this matters if you choose to skip VR for the time being. Although it's a very interesting experience, I wouldn't necessarily recommend it as the primary method to play Il-2 as VR hardware still has several important limitations.

[vpmedia]

I can not (and should not) recommend you hardware without knowing:

-budget
-overclocking y/n
-monitor resolution
-monitor refresh rate
-games he wants to play / acceptable detail (normal/high/ultra)
-things he wants to do besides gaming

[SAS~Storebror]

I've been watching the hardware market for quite a while, but can't find the perfect reason to drop my trusty i5-2500k + Nvidia 970 combo yet.
Graphics card prices are still somewhat crazy and the artificial cutoff of the 1080ti unfortunately hit precisely the spot where I was hoping to find a cheap alternative once the RTX series entered the market, but nope, nada...

CPU wise Intel put us gamers in a tricky position with the new 9000 series as well.
i9-9900k - nope, not worth the money.
i7-9700k - nope, why should I spend so much money for a CPU that has little to offer above the i5. Mind you: While in the past i7 was with SMT (or Hyperthreading for that effect) and i5 without, now on the 9000 series only i9 has SMT.
i5-9600k: Would be the sweet spot, 6 cores without SMT for a reasonable price, but... i5 9000 series CPUs are in fact CPUs which were born as potential i9 ones, but failed core checks, clock rate checks or both and therefore got derated to i7 in the first loop and to i5 in the second for not even reaching i7 specs. You'd buy something that's known faulty, even if only on parts of the die that are laser-cut for that reason now anyway, but still... it's like going to your car dealer and deliberately asking him to sell you a lemon.
i7-8700k: Would theoretically be an alternative, 6 cores plus SMT, but it's price is just slightly below the 9700k and after all it's already an "old" CPU - who likes to buy "old" when you want to create something "new"?

AMD? Ah c'mon... they should do their homework first.


Mike

[vpmedia]

If you want to compared different processors and graphics cards try https://www.passmark.com/index.html

For example ryzen 5 2600x vs i7-8700k vs i5-9600k
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-2600X-vs-Intel-i7-8700K-vs-Intel-i5-9600K/3235vs3098vs3337

Both are better at single core performance than the Ryzen 5 2600x, but also more expensive. If youre on a budget go with the Ryzen 5.

[SAS~Storebror]

Actually I recommend this list: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

AMD is really no option for gaming as many games are limited by single core performance.
A Ryzen 5 would offer some 10% raw synthetic speed advantage on a single core above my i5-2500k
10% is no reason to spend a single dollar on, it just demonstrates how AMD is lightyears behind Intel.


Mike

[W0W66]

I may suggest waiting to see what if anything the new AMD releases bring.  His budget is reasonable I think, I am just trying really hard to make sure that he does not overpay/get something that really is just more money for little gain.

The point brought up about the I9 for example.  I have read that in a few discussions.  Some people will buy it regardless. I do not think it is worth the premium at this stage.

[SAS~Storebror]

Agreed, see https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html#cpuvalue

Performance/Price for the i9 9900k is just 5.51, compared to 6.89 on the i7 9700k and 10.10 on the i5 9600k.
As I wrote before, from a pure price-performance point of view the i5 9600k would be an absolutely reasonable choice.
It's just that bad feeling of deliberately chosing a lemon that sheds a really bad light on it.

If we could be sure to get "error free" CPUs on the i5 tree, i.e. CPUs that have just been capped for marketing/sales reasons, then this CPU would be fine.


Mike

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

As I wrote before, from a pure price-performance point of view the i5 9600k would be an absolutely reasonable choice.
It's just that bad feeling of deliberately chosing a lemon that sheds a really bad light on it.

If we could be sure to get "error free" CPUs on the i5 tree, i.e. CPUs that have just been capped for marketing/sales reasons, then this CPU would be fine.


Mike

Why are you singling out the 9600K for being binned? It's a standard practice in the industry that you have to live with unless you buy the top SKUs.

I haven't seen reports of 9600Ks failing or overclocking particularly poorly, so I really don't see any problem.