PDA

View Full Version : IL2 performance scaling with CPU and GPU speed and settings



Duvel123
07-14-2010, 12:39 PM
Hi all,

I just did a bit of analysis on il2 performance with varying cpu speed, gpu speed and settings like water and ultrapack mods. I thought the results might interest you. Read it here:

http://www.battle-fields.com/c...owthread.php?t=21804 (http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?t=21804)

I will add more later when my radeon 4870 returns from RMA, but already the results are quite surprising to me.

Cheers.

Ba5tard5word
07-14-2010, 01:43 PM
I get similar results with UP--a small and noticeable hit in framerate with UP compared with stock 4.09m, but UP is so great that I don't really mind. Lately I've been playing Il-2 on my 32 inch HDTV and the larger screen seems to make the game look much smoother, I'm not sure if it's a performance thing due to the TV, it's probably more likely that it's a bit less sharp and defined than my 21" computer monitor (but still looks great and is a better flying experience) so the slightly worse framerate is less noticeable, also TrackIR feels smoother on the TV. I tried FRAPS once to see if the UP fps hit was large but it told me the UP game was still running at 60fps.

Duvel123
07-14-2010, 01:52 PM
The surprise to me wasnt so much that UP doesnt incur a big hit; its that even with a 4 year old budget video card, a 3+ GHz core 2 duo is the main bottleneck!

mortoma
07-16-2010, 09:08 PM
Very nice work there. But what your data doesn't show is how IL2 stops benefiting much by extra CPU speed above 3Ghz. When I had my E8400 Core 2 Duo, I found there was little benefit by going from 3 to 4Ghz by overclocking. There was a difference but it was not astounding or even worth the extra heat you get from overclocking. But I got a substantially huge benefit by going from a Nvidia 8600GT ( a POS card ) to a 8800GT. That was like kicking in a turbo for my frame rates.
I was very happy about that upgrade!

I have a i7 965 now, which is unlocked on the multiplier and I can easy OC it in Windows. And I get pretty much the same results. If your graph went up to 4Ghz, we'd see the same type of thing I experienced.

Duvel123
07-18-2010, 04:47 AM
There is nothing magical about 3 GHz. CPU scaling will stop once your bottleneck shifts to the GPU. If you have GPU heavy settings like (very) high resolution, high AA/AF settings etc that will happen sooner. It obviously will also happen sooner if you videocard isnt the fastest. An 8800GT is still s decent card, but no match for your CPU.

Anyway, Id love to prove this, but my CPU has a stock speed of 2.1 GHz. getting it over 3.2 GHz was a pleasant surprise, I dont think it will do 4 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Choctaw111
07-18-2010, 04:14 PM
I am running a QX6700 Quad Core @ 3.22GHz, 4 Gigs of RAM and 2 8800GTX cards in SLI.
Even with this rig, I fly over large cities and frames drop to 15 or below.

TheCrux
07-18-2010, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Duvel123:
There is nothing magical about 3 GHz. CPU scaling will stop once your bottleneck shifts to the GPU. If you have GPU heavy settings like (very) high resolution, high AA/AF settings etc that will happen sooner. It obviously will also happen sooner if you videocard isnt the fastest. An 8800GT is still s decent card, but no match for your CPU.

Anyway, Id love to prove this, but my CPU has a stock speed of 2.1 GHz. getting it over 3.2 GHz was a pleasant surprise, I dont think it will do 4 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by "AA/AF settings"? I guessed maybe anti-aircraft ( which does tax the system )

Very good work anyway. Thanks.

WTE_Galway
07-18-2010, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by TheCrux:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by "AA/AF settings"? I guessed maybe anti-aircraft ( which does tax the system )

Very good work anyway. Thanks.

Two graphics card based techniques that reduce aliasing effects.

AA = Anti Aliasing

This improvement is more obvious on the "edges" of objects like wings, this involves blending vectors into bitmap-based images in a way that reduces the stair-stepping or jagged appearance of angled lines.

AF = Anisotropic Filtering

This one more effects textures and things like the appearance of landscape and runways. It reduces blur and can preserves detail at extreme viewing angles.

Both of these techniques can put a severe load on the graphics card.



To some extent with IL2 its possible choose to force the game to be CPU or Graphics bound depending on what you do. Massed bombers and huge amounts of in game activity can overload any possible CPU whereas high res high AA high AF settings can tax most graphics cards.

rfxcasey
07-18-2010, 10:18 PM
Anti aliasing and Anisotropic filtering. Anti aliasing attempts to correct the jagged edges of lines when view from angles and anisotropic filtering is a filtering method used to make textures look better. Running both setting high will make 3D graphics look much cleaner but will have a certain percentage of performance drain depending on the hardware.

What I found interesting was that the mods seemed to have almost no impact on FPS. This would lead me to strongly suspect that IL-2's weak point is the programming itself as has been suggested. Too bad it would basically take a new engine to fix.

TheCrux
07-18-2010, 11:04 PM
Thanks for the replies. Turns out I'm familiar with the terms and their effects, but the abbreviations somehow threw me through a loop. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Definatley shows my system has long since plateaued though. In fact I'm a case study of the lower end of the spectrum. Still running a 1.6 CPU ( though slightly overclocked ) and wondered why ( till now ) how the best AGP graphics card available didn't seem to really improve my frame rates...though I can make the graphics look nice.

Duvel123
07-19-2010, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
I am running a QX6700 Quad Core @ 3.22GHz, 4 Gigs of RAM and 2 8800GTX cards in SLI.
Even with this rig, I fly over large cities and frames drop to 15 or below.

IL2 is single threaded, it doesnt matter if you have 1, 2, 4 or 6 cores. Your 3.2 quad will not perform any better on this game than the 3.2 dual I used for testing. You are most likely CPU bound.

Then there is SLI; Im not sure if nvidia drivers extract any benefit from SLI in IL2, but would find it interesting to find out. What happens when you disable on of the cards?

I should be able to test with crossfire later this week, but I dont expect it to do much for this game. Its hard enough to find an ATI driver that actually works http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

edit: found this:
http://www.overclockersclub.co...ssfire_vs_sli/11.htm (http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/crossfire_vs_sli/11.htm)
As expected, no improvement from crossfire and a mixed bag for SLI.

Duvel123
07-19-2010, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by rfxcasey:

What I found interesting was that the mods seemed to have almost no impact on FPS. This would lead me to strongly suspect that IL-2's weak point is the programming itself as has been suggested. Too bad it would basically take a new engine to fix.



Im not sure how you come to that conclusion, or even what it means? Mods dont make a big impact, Id say that is because they dont change all that much and maybe stress some part of the system which is underutilized. Like the videocards pixel shaders or whatever. When il2 was developped, we didnt even have programmable shaders (much less dual/quad/hexa core cpus's). So of course, the il2 game engine is dated now. After all its 10 years old and Im sure its far from optimal, and it has some weird performance issues (like over large cities) but I still have to credit it for looking pretty good after all those years. I cant really think of any other game that aged so well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BillSwagger
07-19-2010, 02:23 AM
I could be wrong but i thought the graphic issues with Il2 and large cities has something to do with the LOD interface. Basically, the game loads all objects no matter how far they are and weather you can see them or not.

I run a Duo 1.67 CPU ,2GB ram, and 128mb of video memory. I don't even get the option of perfect settings, and when i maximize what i can, the most video memory i'm able to use before the CPU maxes out is about 75mb. This is with most new games, not just Il2. It seems lower clock speeds don't even manage full use of the video components anyway.

This information has been very useful and is something i will keep in mind while searching for a new computer.

thanks for posting


Bill

Duvel123
07-19-2010, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I could be wrong but i thought the graphic issues with Il2 and large cities has something to do with the LOD interface. Basically, the game loads all objects no matter how far they are and weather you can see them or not.

Sure looks like LOD works. You can see building "pop in to view" as they get nearer, this works over large cities as well as elsewhere.

Maybe it has to do with FOV though. It seems a LOT worse when you zoom in, and perhaps there is the problem that the game loads and renders everything needed for the wide angle even if you are zoomed in?


I run a Duo 1.67 CPU ,2GB ram, and 128mb of video memory. I don't even get the option of perfect settings,

perfect settings are only available in OpenGL mode. If you are running DirectX you dont get the option. id generally strongly recommend using opengl, as its native to the game. The DirectX option is just a wrapper around it and usually hurts performance, its only for those cards with no or no proper opengl driver support. What card do you have?


and when i maximize what i can, the most video memory i'm able to use before the CPU maxes out is about 75mb. This is with most new games, not just Il2. It seems lower clock speeds don't even manage full use of the video components anyway.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here. How did you determine the amount of videomemory used?


This information has been very useful and is something i will keep in mind while searching for a new computer.

thanks for posting


You're welcome. Glad its useful for some http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BillSwagger
07-19-2010, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by Duvel123:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I could be wrong but i thought the graphic issues with Il2 and large cities has something to do with the LOD interface. Basically, the game loads all objects no matter how far they are and weather you can see them or not.

Sure looks like LOD works. You can see building "pop in to view" as they get nearer, this works over large cities as well as elsewhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh it works fine, but the problem i think has something to do with how ground objects are rendered. There was a post not long ago from the person who built the Slovakia map that went into this subject a bit more. He mentioned that its easier for the game to load 1000 objects of the same type than it is to load 50 objects of 20 different types. I've also observed that although the objects aren't rendered, before they "pop-up", that resources are still used to determine that they are there. Like looking in the direction of a city is enough to lose frame rate.
A lot of the object load seems to be alleviated by lowering object detail settings but i usually just leave them on high. This had me thinking it has something to do with the texture sizes or LOD, because thats what the object detail controls.
I've messed around with my own 3d objects and put them in the game and found that outside of aircraft and landscape trees, most objects only have one LOD. So i think some objects get rendered with the same polygon count no matter how far they are.


To answer your other questions, i have a laptop which is a bit dated but plays Il2 fine at "excellent" settings. The video card is older, so whether i use DX or OpenGL i have no options to use perfect settings. I'm still able to adjust config.ini to get a more trees, and better shadows, etc. but my card lacks the shaders to animate the water properly. I stick with Dx because i get both better performance and graphics.
There are some work arounds through modding, but out of the box it would be better with a more up to date PC, no doubt.
Using the standard resolution of 1024x768, i think most computers would run Il2 very easily but most people prefer to run a finer resolution than that. I have to think that a state of the art computer may still bottle neck if attempting run 1400 or 1600 x 1200 for example, but i have little knowledge of this area.

If there were a way to overclock my laptop i would but my search for such a way has always lead me to BSOD, or incompatible software.

Bill

Cold_Gambler
07-19-2010, 08:44 AM
Very nice work Duvell!

Thanks for taking the time to do all that testing.

Ba5tard5word
07-19-2010, 09:51 AM
The game runs better for me over cities with UP 2.1 using the 4GB RAM .exe which lets Il-2 use more RAM. No slow down at all over small cities. Also it reduced the stuttering that 4.09m introduced.

UP doesn't really noticeably affect the framerate, but it does kind of make the game feel less smooth like when you're looking around, it's noticeable but you get used to it.

Duvel123
08-08-2010, 11:45 AM
I got my radeon 4870 back and put it to the test as well. The results are even more shocking:

http://www.battle-fields.com/c...&posted=1#post261760 (http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?t=21901)

rfxcasey
08-09-2010, 05:12 AM
The only thing that seemed to give me trouble was ground explosions or when many ground objects are on fire. For some reason, could be the technique used for particle rendering, I would get heavy frame drop when viewing multiple ground explosions in say a city for instance. I have since set effects in my conf.ini to 0 from 1 which from what I read sounds like it just disables some shadowing in the smoke. It really seems to have made a noticeable difference in such situations with basically no effect of graphic quility. I'm running UP anyways so it has it's own visual tweaks that seem to have no effect on framerates. The Black Death track seemed to run noticeably better during heavy explosion sequences as well.

Duvel123
08-09-2010, 05:34 AM
Casey,

I just tested with effects=0 and there is no difference for me (neither visual nor performance). Also using ultrapack, similar but slightly faster videocard.

here look:
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/9441/14204181.png

Could you do me a favor and run the ceylon torture track and fraps it ? Link and instructions here:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...3110283/m/4271084678 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4271084678)

Feel free to try both with effects 1 and 0.

Nothing i do changes my performance (on that track) other than scaling my CPU speed or going beserk on the resolution and AA (at 1920x1080 with 8xAA there is a *slight* slowdown as my videocard begins to struggle.).