homepage Forums Air Combat & Civil Aviation IL-2: FB, AEP, PF Framerates WORSE With New Rig?

Not sure about that, Tolwyn. In any case, I know that the game and missions load a LOT faster, and I've seen nary a stutter in my test flights. All other applications show similar results. This is a much faster machine than my old P4 2.8 GHz.

All these misconceptions really piss off the advanced PC user that understands how to build a gaming system.

I have a lowly Athlon OC's to 2.4Ghz
With an 8x AGP 6600

I get 35-40fps all the time. Regardless of track, map, or what-have-you (caveat: I lose around 8fps over large-ass object-ridden cities)

Because I understand what FSAA is really for
Because I understand what Anisotropic filtering is really for

You people that run 8x FSAA and Anisotropic just don't get it. And you wonder why the game doesn't run any faster on your newer PCs. You guys that run a 4:3 aspect 1024x768 game at 1600x1280 resolution. You all crack me up thinking it's going to be a better experience. One gets tired trying to talk to lemmings!

Ah well.

You're confusing load time and HD access (serial HD) for missions vs. performance.

I'm sure, Banger.
The application itself MUST support multiple threads for CPU cycle aggregation. PF simply doesn't do it.

Don't get all pissed off, now, Tolwyn. I only run 2xAA, and no Ansiotropic filtering. Yes, I run at 1280 x 1024, but that's my monitor's native resolution, and on my old P4 2.8 GHz with a 6600 I always got the same FPS as you're getting. So I don't think I'm ready to join the ranks of the lemmings just yet.

Whatever, Tolwyn. When the old PC started to die, I simply ordered the most powerful CPU available for the new PC. Just trying to run the game as well as the new PC will manage. No need to get testy.

I'm not being testy, I'm trying to explain why people are getting frustrated why their new "super" computer can't run yesterday's games at blazing speeds.

Each "core" is actually lower, from a CPU cycle perspective, than their predecessors.

Applications that can't multi-thread (IL2) will suffer.

The marketing people will always try and sell you a quad because bigger numbers sell but at the moment it is the clock speed of each core that matters because not many apps are coded for multi-core although many will run better with them of course simply because of how damn efficient the Core2 and Quads are in comparison with the P4.

A dual core with higher clocks per core than a quad will usually perform faster so makes more sense but to be fair things won't always stay like this and future apps will be coded to take more advantage of multi-core so a quad with lower clocks per core may well perform better more of the time.

IL2 2-3 years from now may well storm along on a quad who knows. But to be fair here Banger admits he didn't buy it as a gaming pc and most modern games rely on a high end GC rather than cpu speed.

His quad may not make the current IL2 1946 run any faster but he may end up having the last laugh.

True.
Just like the parents of the little kid down the block that was born with really long legs may one day run faster than today's gold medalist.

Sigh.

Sigh away my superior friend. Sigh away.

That is a fair point about older games not being designed for the newer processors, and I do appreciate the insight. It helps me understand the limitations, so thanks for that.

I'm not frustrated, though, not really. This PC is intended to last our family for several years, that's why I bought the quad-core. The only dual-core processors offered for the Dell Inspiron 530 clocked no better than 2.4 GHz, so I'm not losing much compared to my old rig (a machine that originally clocked at 1.8 GHz, which I eventually upgraded to 2.8 GHz, though the 256KB L2 cache and 400 FSB always throttled performance). With 8 MB L2 cache, a 1066 FSB, and the more-effcient chip architecture, I reckon that on balance I'm gaining performance with the new rig.

I'm already happy enough with the way IL2 runs on this rig -- FPS might be a bit lower, but I swear it feels smoother -- so any performance gain from the 8600 will be a bonus. Just how much of a bonus we'll see shortly ...

UPDATE

Installed the new 8600 GT this afternoon. WHOA -- what a difference!

Now running with all video settings at maximum (including Perfect landscape), 1280 x 1024 resolution, 4x AA, and 2x Ansiotropic filtering, and IL-2 is smooth at 45 FPS down low, and 60-75 FPS in the air. Using Excellent instead of Perfect landscape, framerates are even better, a steady 60 FPS down low (even over palm trees on Pacific Island map).

Not to be argumentative, but the quad-core 2.4 GHz is definitely faster than my old P4 2.8 GHz. Something else that's interesting -- when I run one of IL-2's standard video resolutions, FPS is maxed out at my LCD monitor's refresh rate (60 Hz). However, when I run at the native resolution of 1280 x 1024, FPS goes way above 60.

Thanks for all the advice, guys. You were sure right. It's not an 8800, but this 8600 really did unlock the rig's potential!

I wish I had the wisdom of an advanced PC user!

I also have that Core2Quad Q6600, but I've bought GeForce 8800 GT 512MB. I also bought a 24-inch display with a native resolution of 1920x1200, but luckily my 8800GT is powerful enough to run IL-2 smoothly in perfect mode at native resolution with 4x AA and 16x AF. I also use water=2 to see 3d waves in IL-2 and I've maxed all texture quality settings in nVidia control panel.

According to many benchmarks one 8800GT has the performance of three 8600GT's at highest resolutions, but at 1280x1024 the full potential of 8800GT cannot be used. Thus 8600GT is a good card when using a display with native resolution of 1280x1024. It's fast enough for lower resolutions and upgrading to 8800GT wouldn't make a big difference.

When choosing the CPU I knew that IL-2 uses only one core and I was about to buy a 3.0 GHz Core2duo, but I thought that BOB may be able to use four cores and bought Q6600 instead. I think a 2.4 GHz Core2duo is fast enough for IL-2 and Q6600 is as fast. And then there is some CPU speed available for other programs, since with IL-2 my CPU load never exeeds 30%.

BTW, I have 4GB DDR2-800 and 64bit Vista, so running out of memory shouldn't be problem. However I got some weird periodic stutters in some maps with lots of water, so maybe 512MB is a bit too small graphics memory at my settings.

UPDATE: I forced V-sync off and now those stutters are gone and I get steady 50-80 minimum fps, although low over large cities like Berlin I get only 5 fps. So IL-2 actually has V-sync enabled as a default setting and that may cause some stutters on some maps.

Glad you got it sorted out. I think the Core2 series CPU's process faster because of the way they handle information, they are far more efficient than the old P4.

Good stuff, Birdman! IL-2 has never liked V-sync. Usually, I don't even notice that it's off.

Yeah, stans, this is really sweet. Six years after IL-2 debuted, I finally have a rig that can run it! Say hello to all the guys in VMF-124 for me.

Tolwyn is basically correct. There are few - very few games that are optimised for dual core, let alone quad core.
In those types of systems, if the game (sim) is optimised for one core then you are better off with a one core 2.8 ghz than a 4 core 2.8ghz. All of the former is going to be used and some of the latter is going to be used. Hence, lesser performance on the latter.
Then he has a GS graphics card. A GS suffix graphics card is the least performer of that size graphics card. It is a cheapo, cannot- really- perform version. And maybe a better graphics card will still be bottlenecked by the processor.
My Athlon 4000 single core , nVidia 7800GTX , 2 gigs ram runs 1946 at 60 FPS at all scenarios. And it is at 60 because the refresh rate is 60 ( limitations of a projector )
Let me know when sims are written for quad core and then i may consider buying one.

I'm afraid Banger's new system is a backward step from a gaming viewpoint.The marketing boys have won again.

Well, Cas, with an 8600 GT, the new rig turned out to be a BIG step forward from my old P4 2.8 GHz (see results above). No, the "marketing boys" didn't win -- no processor offered for the Dell Inspiron 530 desktop clocks in at over 2.4 GHz (and they're all Core2 processors). So I'm happy with the Q6600 I selected. Your rig might very well run IL-2 faster than mine, but for a non-gaming rig, I'm very pleased with my results.

Indeed.

PS: If I had a PCI-E port on my system, I could expect MUCH better performance with my system.

It's called research and the cost/benefit analysis.
My card is old - very old - technologically speaking; however, considering my MB only supports 8x AGP, it's the "Card for the WIN!" for my MB.

Scoff if you want. I know I'm right. And really, that's all that matters.

LOL! I ain't scoffing, Tolwyn. As you say, springing for a new quad-core rig just doesn't make sense, in your situation.

My old P4 rig was about to pack it in -- memory going bad, hard drive making alarming noises, intermittent blue-screen episodes. A new PC seemed the better alternative, versus investing more money in a six-year-old rig saddled with an inferior motherboard, expensive RDRAM, and a relatively weak power supply.

This'll do fine for now. In another year or so, when the kid's potty-trained and things have quieted down at home, maybe I'll get around to building a proper gaming rig.