(B/229) Grizzly wrote:I don't think I get what you're saying. A CPU doesn't have a graphics processor, or does it? Most mainboards have a graphics processor. At least, to my knowledge.

All I can say that a serious GPU upgrade didn't show any improvement for me, while a reasonable CPU overclock really did make a noticable difference for me.

So the best bet would be to get a better CPU. I know that's what I'm getting next upgrade

Funny, every chip since Nehalem came out has had a graphics integrated chip. FYI, the Haswell I am currently running is the best performing GPU/CPU combo out on the market. Its pretty much useless since I have a video card, but it is comparable to the GT620. As far as mainboard having an onboard GPU, most enthusiast boards dont come with them anymore. Reason being is because if you are going to buy a high end board, you are most likely going to buy a high end video card too, and mainboards without built in GPUs will have lower power consumption/better overclocking abilities.

(A/229) Hitman wrote:Yes, a GTX680 is high end, but so is a GTX570, GTX580, GTX590...
A GT620 is not considered high end, thats closer to low end, mostly reserved for low end laptops. Let me put it this way: you are going to get better graphics off of a low end tier card, than you would with just using the graphics processor on your cpu. You are going to get a huge performance increase using a low end tiered card over the processor, but eventually you will top out somewhere. Top of the line GFX in DCS world is around the GTX570 level, and you can only hope for better than 10fps increase when upgrading from THAT to...lets say...a GTX780, or even the Titan.

Hitman, your right. A GTX is a "gaming card". Go for a GTX. If Trapper can afford for a top one, actually, the GTX770 has a good quality/price ratio.

Like I said, I'm everything BUT an IT guy, I thought that having an onboard GPU meant having a GPU on your mainboard, not CPU. I don't think any gamer would play on a PC without a dedicated GPU.

I'm amazed that with my setup, I sometimes still get <20FPS. My CPU is old, but the rest is pretty fine I think.
AMD Phenom II X4 955 3.2Ghz, Radeon HD7950 and 16GB RAM. DCS is just very messed up I guess. Or something else might be wrong.

Getting under fire means a relation with graphics? I'm not sure, how much graphics is there to load a smoke trail? Or tracer? Isn't the ballistics and physics calculation more demanding?
I mean, compare DCS to other games, the graphics are everything but amazing... And in other games FPS doesn't suffer as much from graphics effects.

I get what hitman is saying and I would agree with him. The integrated GPUs within the modern day CPU's are fine for watching HD tv and playing sims but certainly not for first person shooters and simulators. But there's no point going spending £600 on a GPU because DCS can't utilize all that power so its wasted. So all you need is a good GTX series or HD radeon but not the latest. Unfortunately the GT620 is no better really than a intergrated GPU

You don't need a better CPU to increase your FPS in DCS, an i7 is plenty even running at 3.5ghz without OC'ing.

Also I would disagree with flyingfrog that about getting the WD drive. SSD's have come down in price and a 128gb M4 is only £75.

(B/229) Grizzly wrote:I don't think I get what you're saying. A CPU doesn't have a graphics processor, or does it? Most mainboards have a graphics processor. At least, to my knowledge.

All I can say that a serious GPU upgrade didn't show any improvement for me, while a reasonable CPU overclock really did make a noticable difference for me.

So the best bet would be to get a better CPU. I know that's what I'm getting next upgrade

Grizzly, you mention "What really matters in DCS is your CPU", my old Quad is used about 70%, what about yours. About motherboard GPU, useless when having a vCard, the vCard overlay it. If some have a regular desktop PC, entry level, or as bad seller can sale "unbalace" gaming PC, you have first to resolve the bottle neck. My recommendation, for Trapper, as mentioned, it's a main rule on pimping up gaming PC (already balance).

Lots of good stuff in these posts guys !

Knew I was going short on the GT 620 when I got this new system but figured it would be ok (and cheap) till I figured out where to go with an upgrade. And to be honest, everything else I play or work with runs very well or better so far. DCS is the one that sucks the life out of it for me.

Another MMO I play with graphics set on high and even with thunder, lightening, rain, flame and smoke all around me, runs very well. But in DCS, a few raindrops or artillery hits, and my fps drops down to 3 - 5 fps. Can you say "slideshow" !

Will try a couple of the tweeks mentioned above and start looking for a deal on a new video game card.

Edit: Have seen some really good prices on GTX760's. The 770 is a fair amount higher and the 680 is " Oh wow ! "

(B/229) Grizzly wrote:
Getting under fire means a relation with graphics? I'm not sure, how much graphics is there to load a smoke trail? Or tracer? Isn't the ballistics and physics calculation more demanding?
I mean, compare DCS to other games, the graphics are everything but amazing... And in other games FPS doesn't suffer as much from graphics effects.

"Special effect", right it take much more on GPU then CPU calculation. As mentioned, I monitor frequently my CPU, I can confirm. DCS looks well design to spread calculations on different core.

(B/229) pridefc wrote:I get what hitman is saying and I would agree with him. The integrated GPUs within the modern day CPU's are fine for watching HD tv and playing sims but certainly not for first person shooters and simulators. But there's no point going spending £600 on a GPU because DCS can't utilize all that power so its wasted. So all you need is a good GTX series or HD radeon but not the latest. Unfortunately the GT620 is no better really than a intergrated GPU

You don't need a better CPU to increase your FPS in DCS, an i7 is plenty even running at 3.5ghz without OC'ing.

Also I would disagree with flyingfrog that about getting the WD drive. SSD's have come down in price and a 128gb M4 is only £75.

What I would do:

Mobo:
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0414820

CPU:
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0413251

GPU:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nvidia-EVGA-GTX-580-15GB-Ram-PN-015P31580AR-/151095525460

SSD:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/390990/HyperX_3K_SH103S3-240G_240GB_SATA_6Gb-s_25_Internal_Solid_State_Drive_%28SSD%29_with_SandForce_SF-2281_Controller

I know I would do this, because this is a build I started off with a year ago, sans the Haswell setup. Prior to this, I had a Sandy Bridge 2600k with a Gigabyte x68 UD3 board, and it served me well. Best of all, the tower, psu, TM Warthog, monitor, rudder pedals, and everything else all tallied up to less than 1800 bucks to build. The above upgrades will only set you back $650 dollars, and it is very much worth every penny of it.

(B/229) pridefc wrote:I get what hitman is saying and I would agree with him. The integrated GPUs within the modern day CPU's are fine for watching HD tv and playing sims but certainly not for first person shooters and simulators. But there's no point going spending £600 on a GPU because DCS can't utilize all that power so its wasted. So all you need is a good GTX series or HD radeon but not the latest. Unfortunately the GT620 is no better really than a intergrated GPU
You don't need a better CPU to increase your FPS in DCS, an i7 is plenty even running at 3.5ghz without OC'ing.

+1

(A/229) Hitman wrote:
GPU:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nvidia-EVGA-GTX-580-15GB-Ram-PN-015P31580AR-/151095525460

Personnaly, I would avoid going with a used VCard.

(A/229) FlyingFrog wrote:

(B/229) Grizzly wrote:
Getting under fire means a relation with graphics? I'm not sure, how much graphics is there to load a smoke trail? Or tracer? Isn't the ballistics and physics calculation more demanding?
I mean, compare DCS to other games, the graphics are everything but amazing... And in other games FPS doesn't suffer as much from graphics effects.

"Special effect", right it take much more on GPU then CPU calculation. As mentioned, I monitor frequently my CPU, I can confirm. DCS looks well design to spread calculations on different core.

I've read on forums a couple of times that DCS only utilizes one core.

I have to admit I didn't read the opening post thoroughly. Missed the low end GPU topic starter has. That could very well be a bottle neck then ofcourse. But right now, with my setup, by overclocking my CPU I've proven to myself that my CPU is the bottleneck.

Maybe it'd be money better spent if we all collect a couple bucks and donate it to ED to finally get a decent graphics engine up and running... Hopefully EDGE will improve FPS and graphics.

(A/229) FlyingFrog wrote:

(A/229) Hitman wrote:
GPU:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nvidia-EVGA-GTX-580-15GB-Ram-PN-015P31580AR-/151095525460

Personnaly, I would avoid going with a used VCard.

Sometimes, its the best bet. You can search ebay and find brand new stuff. Best of all, buying stuff off ebay resolves certain issues like faulty hardware. Ive never had a problem hunting things down on ebay that either a vendor didnt warranty themselves, or ebay didnt refund. Its refurbishes I would tend to stay far away from.

(B/229) Grizzly wrote:I have to admit I didn't read the opening post thoroughly. Missed the low end GPU topic starter has. That could very well be a bottle neck then ofcourse. But right now, with my setup, by overclocking my CPU I've proven to myself that my CPU is the bottleneck.

Maybe it'd be money better spent if we all collect a couple bucks and donate it to ED to finally get a decent graphics engine up and running... Hopefully EDGE will improve FPS and graphics.

We can at least make pressure by voting there (if not already done): http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=110892

I wouldnt waste time trying to get ED to do anything. If the last 11 years Ive dealt with them has taught me, is that they arent going to bend to anyone for anything. To give you an idea about that, just remember it took them 12 years to finally update the Su 33 model...a model they claim has been around since LOMAC, but really has been around since Flanker 2.0.

Yeah... Too bad they kind of have the 'monopoly' on a decent military flight sim....

OK guys. Finances are a bit tight these days. I went "gulp" when I looked at the GTX 780. The 770 ?. But the GTX 760 actually looked really good to me compared to my current GT 620 and at a relatively do-able price. ? ? ? I have no plans for multiple monitors, etc,  in foreseeable future.

Edit: Last couple of posts remind me of conversations on the 1C Forum. The IL-2 series is another one where a dedicated core of users and modders have kept them going and viable for years past initial release. Still a lot of fun to be had there too, especially in for early WWII era.

i7 - 3770K @ 3.5 ghz. Quad
Win 8 64 bit
8 gb ram
1 tb Toshiba drive
GeForce GT620

A GTX 760 is a pretty damn good option, as they are almost comparable to the GTX680. That is saying something. I may buy me a 780 soon, but Ive only had this 680 for a year now, and its hard to justify buying one this soon.

Discovered that my current power supply would not support a new GPU so got a new Corsair on the way first. Who knows, maybe that will help other issues too.

In the meantime I overclocked the Gt 620 a bit with Afterburner and it really helped push some missions over onto the playable side re fps. Only made about a 5 fps difference on average but when you are low to mid teens to start, it's noticeable.

Is your computer one of those market computers built by the likes of Dell?

No, but I got a build with a nice open full tower case, fans, main board, cpu, ram, decent HD and went short on the GPU, power supply, etc, figuring I'd move up a piece at a time as required. And actually my professional cad programs and most of my newer and legacy games ran better then expected until DCS SP & MP. Then all it took was a few raindrops in a mission to send me down to the 3 - 5 fps range. Kill the rain only and back to mid teens. Less demanding missions, upper teens with scenery on mid. Afterburner helped a bit.

If its not a company produced basketcase, that makes it a custom built computer, right? If thats the case, then you must have a power supply that is capable of running a card like a GTX760. If not, you can always look on newegg for a decent PSU. I have a Corsair TX750w, its not modular but I cut a bunch of cables off of mine and shrink wrapped the dead leads. Didnt cost me an arm or a leg either, brand new its like $150. If yours is a high end, but doesnt come with the plug leads to power the card, the cards themselves ship with power adapters which should connect to a molex lead or a SATA lead.

Hey guys, I recently did a PC upgrade. In two steps.

I used to have a AMD Phenom II X4 955, 8gb RAM, HD5770. DCS was the main reason to upgrade, since DCS is so terribly sluggish most of the times. So I bought 16gb RAM and a fast videocard, HD7950.

Result? Almost no difference...

So I got frustrated, especially after having flown Huey missions where the FPS dropped to 6-7 and controls are very degraded, so I upgraded again. Step 2: New 650W PSU, new mainboard, Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD, and most importantly: An Intel i5-4670K.

And guess what, FPS is a lot better. Haven't done any extensive testing yet, but with all settings at high I get a smooth 30FPS+ (instant free flight UH-1) whereas with all settings low I'd get a mere 20FPS with my old CPU.

So like I said, the CPU is really really important for DCS performance. Still, the DCS engine is like it's from the stone age, but getting a better CPU can really help you.

Grizzly you've just confirmed what we've been saying is needed. You now have a far more balanced machine so I'm not surprised you're getting those FPS'.

I don't think it's about the balancing, I think it's the CPU mainly.

For instance, in ArmA3 I had a huge improvement after the step 1 upgrade. In DCS next to nothing (UNLESS I overclocked, that won me a couple of FPS).
So ArmA3 needed the GPU, DCS needed the CPU.