CPU or GPU is more important?

[acare84]

For this game which is more important? CPU or GPU? For example Microsoft Flight Simulator Series CPU is more important and better CPU's boost the FPS. But I think GPU is more important for CoD, so how will be the performance with Nvidia GTX 570 on Intel Core 2 Quad 3.0 GHZ, 4 GB RAM? Thanks.

[Space Communist]

Right now it seems that the only people getting really good performance have video cards with more than 1 gb of vram. I suspect this is a temporary situation though. Once the graphics are optimized, it will probably depend on the type of mission you are running. Like if you are just flying alone your fps would be limited by your video, but if you put in 50 aircraft your cpu would be the limiting factor most likely.

[666th_Lange]

I'm using a GTX480 with 1536MB/RAM (together with a i950 CPU and 6GB of RAM) and the performance is crappy. I don't want FPS, i'm looking for smooth gameplay and we are lightyears from that.

[Vonov]

I'm using a GTX480 with 1536MB/RAM (together with a i950 CPU and 6GB of RAM) and the performance is crappy. I don't want FPS, i'm looking for smooth gameplay and we are lightyears from that.
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but FPS, which stands for Frames Per Second, is DIRECTLY related to smooth gameplay. Full-motion video, or what the eye perceives as smooth, natural motion, is usually a minimum of 30 frames per second...in the early days of making motion pictures, it was found that the optimum speed of the picture frames moving between the camera/projector lens, and the light source, was about 30 per second, to produce full motion video. It gave the best balance between natural-looking motion, and cost of film and developing. The reason you see jerky motion in a lot of older films, particularly during the silent film/World War I era, is that this hadn't yet been standardized, and some cameras had no means for regulating the speed of film advance. Our brains 'fill in' the movement between the frames.
The same holds true when we play games on our computers. To render (draw) motion on your computer, the video card has to generate every single pixel you see on your screen, and if that doesn't happen at least 20-30 times per second, the motion you are seeing is perceived as jerky, or even a slideshow, making it frustrating, fatiguing to your eyes, and causing a subtle form of stress (your brain trying to fill the gaps in the motion). Sometimes things happening which appear to be network lag, are actually video issues caused by a bottleneck in your system, such as a CPU which can't keep up with the video card, like pairing one of the early AMD AthlonII Agena-series quad-core processors and DDR2 RAM, with an HD6970 video card. (Don't ask me how I know, lol.) I would even go so far as to be willing to bet that a large percentage of computer gaming-induced epileptic episodes are caused by photo-susceptible gamers trying to play games on machines which are not really capable.

[Kiwi_Bro]

I have an alienware notebook 17inch with a core i7 and dual 1GB ATI5870.With everything on extra high and at 1900/1080 resolution (1080i) with no aa . it is VERY laggy .
Swapped it to 1600 resolution , somewhat better with everything on extra high , still slightly jerky.. Might start playing with the settings to get to run smooth.

GPU is very important for this game visuals.

CPU good for game loading times and maybe controlling large amounts of AI vehicles/planes

[335th_GRAthos]

Three things are important:
1. GPU
2. GPU
3. GPU
4. anything else...


Long gone are the times you used to run a game at 3072x resolutions (I used to do).

Start with 640x resolution, if happy with no stutters, increase to 800x and then 1024x

The moment you start having stutters, you know the limit of your current GPU.

I do not know why you have so many stutters with your GPU, my fps and settings under 800x and 1024x resolutions (at the bottom of the thread)
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19777&page=3

Future patches will definitively improve the situation
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20055&page=12

[kimosabi]

It's a bit early to state what's going to work best IMO. Luthier has stated that teh cpu opimization is being worked on, elbow grease style, so in a month or two we might see how the engine distributes resources like it should.

[etzi]

I have my i5-2500K @ 4.9GHz, but if only one core is supported, the vga card is much more important. The load of my GPU is @ 100%.

[Sasha]

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but FPS, which stands for Frames Per Second, is DIRECTLY related to smooth gameplay. Full-motion video, or what the eye perceives as smooth, natural motion, is usually a minimum of 30 frames per second...

Well... these famous 30 FPS are not really valid for CoD. This is not RPG or RTS game but flight simulator.

It is hardly possible to enjoy flying feeling (arial combat action) under 40 FPS...

Anyway, if lowering resolution, AA, AF, texures,... speeds up significantly your game -"bottleneck" is not CPU.

But guys - don't forget RAM in this discussion... Flying over London or 3D trees is certainly RAM intensive.

[kimosabi]

well... These famous 30 fps are not really valid for cod. This is not rpg or rts game but flight simulator.

It is hardly possible to enjoy flying feeling (arial combat action) under 40 fps...



qft

[666th_Lange]

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but FPS, which stands for Frames Per Second, is DIRECTLY related to smooth gameplay. Full-motion video, or what the eye perceives as smooth, natural motion, is usually a minimum of 30 frames per second...

You did indeed misunderstood me (;)). You can have an avg of 80FPS but still have stutter. Smooth for me is not a high FPS (but high enough to not make it jerky) but smooth "for me" means no stutter. I prefer a constant FPS of 30 and smooth scrolling of the landscape over an FPS of 80 with hickups. But for some, it can be jerky as hell, as long as the FPS reaches tripple numbers, they are satisfied. It's a matter of perception. And for me, COD is a nightmare at this current state, just plain horrible.

[MadTommy]

I'm using a GTX480 with 1536MB/RAM (together with a i950 CPU and 6GB of RAM) and the performance is crappy. I don't want FPS, i'm looking for smooth gameplay and we are lightyears from that.

You must have a slow HD or some other issue.

I have a GTX480 and a dual core E8400 @ 3.6Ghz... very few stutters, only get minor stutters when a large town/city comes into view. Most of the time its very smooth. But i have a SSD drive.

[z0ttel]

Hi,

I have been monitoring my system the last days during the game using perfmon (for CPU, RAM and HDD) and gpu-z (for GPU and VRAM). The results show, that the GPU and the VRAM are the limiting factor. Both are at 100% during the game, whereas the CPU never reaches that limit. Normal RAM never drops below ~1GB and the HDDs are almost at 90% idle time.

So I think it's time to think about an GPU upgrade. The situation might be less worse with the upcoming patches, but I wouldn't count too much on that - in my special case, the GPU seems to be totally outdated :( which is ok, because I've paid only a few bucks for it :grin:

[jimbop]

I'm looking for 60+ fps with no stutter. Currently getting an average of 60 but the stutter is annoying. Not really bad but bad enough. And the lack of vsync gives atrocious tearing.

[666th_Lange]

You must have a slow HD or some other issue.

I have a GTX480 and a dual core E8400 @ 3.6Ghz... very few stutters, only get minor stutters when a large town/city comes into view. Most of the time its very smooth. But i have a SSD drive.

With 6GB of RAM, HD or SSD should not matter, only on the loading times when the game starts. There's plenty of RAM to use, i can wait a bit for it to load completely (or with a bigger bubble) then have to undergo a stutter everytime something is loaded into memory. Same issue with DCS:A-10C which has stutters but which i have seen only use 3,5GB of memory at max.
Peeps then rush out to buy an SSD only to find that the game loads much faster on startup and that the hickups maybe are smaller but that they still suffer from stutter because the RAM is not entirly used.

BTW: as long as the game isn't patched up to a finished state (there's a lot of work still to be done on this one), there's no need to rush out and buy new hardware. What would you do if this was the X-Box 360 (or PS3 whetever) and the released game you buy is delivered in this state? Go out and buy some new hardware in order to run it? Guess not.

[kalimba]

SInce there are no " blurr" from on frame to the other from a fast moving object in video rendering, like on film at 24 fps, the ideal minimum fps for a video game is 60 fps to have a cinematographic correspondance...
It can be smooth under there rates, but it will not be "realistic"...
So lets hope patches will allow top PCs those performances with lots of action in the air !

Salute!

[jimbop]

SInce there are no " blurr" from on frame to the other from a fast moving object in video rendering, like on film at 24 fps, the ideal minimum fps for a video game is 60 fps to have a cinematographic correspondance...
It can be smooth under there rates, but it will not be "realistic"...
So lets hope patches will allow top PCs those performances with lots of action in the air !

Salute!

+1. The 30fps argument is not valid IMHO.

[madrebel]

SInce there are no " blurr" from on frame to the other from a fast moving object in video rendering, like on film at 24 fps, the ideal minimum fps for a video game is 60 fps to have a cinematographic correspondance...
It can be smooth under there rates, but it will not be "realistic"...
So lets hope patches will allow top PCs those performances with lots of action in the air !

Salute!

you know its funny cause people hav argued for so long that "zomg you only need 24 fps" completely not understanding the issue.

well some in hollywood want 60fps (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/james-cameron-fully-intends-make-172916) because 24 is extremely limiting.

[kalimba]

you know its funny cause people hav argued for so long that "zomg you only need 24 fps" completely not understanding the issue.

well some in hollywood want 60fps (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/james-cameron-fully-intends-make-172916) because 24 is extremely limiting.

24 fps was the standard for film, based on the fact that people wouldn't notice any stuttering at that rate...Early movies were shot at 18 fps (like some WW1 movies) and we can clearly see stuttering...But it works with an average shutter speed of 1/125 witch makes a fast moving object leaving a trail that makes the passing from one frame to the other look smooth...
SOme camera F/X were used at 24 FPS but with hight shutter speed in Gladiator, and it gives the impression of stroboscopic movement...CLose to what a game would do...Funny...

Salute !

[15JG52_Brauer]

Well from what I've seen it'sGPU locked not cpu locked (9% overall cpu load - not more than 60% on core 1 - with process affinity mask -15 set in conf ini) - ps GPU load was 0% for screenshot on desktop - but 99% when running the game - just on gpu 1. peak temps 90c on gpu1, 45c on gpu2 - 0% load gpu 2.
Also this was with CPU on 4.4 ghz not 4.7 - trying lower setting to see if there is any impact - will try tomorrow at stock and then underclocked speeds to see if I can find where CPU becomes the limit.

[15JG52_Brauer]

Just changed land to high and put cpu back to stock clocks - no noticeable change in fps - still around 45 fps on London free flight (first minute of track - tir turned off, auto pilot on to get repeatable benchmark) - GPU now using nearly 1.5 gb memory - no stutters (Have 2x60gb ssd's in raid array - maybe they are helping as I've not had the microstutters at all).

[Thee_oddball]

add 6 planes over London...your FPS will be about 18 :(

[15JG52_Brauer]

FPS in external view is very good - about twice of in cockpit view

[IbnSolmyr]

I believe GPU is effectively, at this stage of developpement, the most important, because : my new rig is good but i kept my previous GC and i experiance a lot of stutters, and fps is rather poor...
Gigabyte X58 UD3R, i 7 950 OC @ 3,22 Ghz, 12 Go @ 1600 Mhz, SSD OCZ Vertex 2 120 Go, and "only" Sapphire HD 4870 2 Go OC @ 780 Mhz core and 1090 Mhz vRAM.

[15JG52_Brauer]

Repeated my test (London sightseeing spit) with CPU clocked down to 2.66 ghz - lost 5 fps compared to 4.6 ghz test - will have to try similar tests ith track of London bombing mission to see ho CU affects things whenthere re muliple planes -bt with just 1 plane CPU is not critical (difference between 38fps and 43fps is not noticeable) - also no stutters (but then I have not sufered from that at all so far - probably as my GPU has 1.5 gb vram).

[335th_GRAthos]

Thank you 15JG52_Brauer for posting the GPU-Z information, this made the difference!

Some more information on this post:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20438

~S~