6700k + 1080ti what to upgrade to? - Decided not to. **Edit to add** I think I was wrong

[spookywatcher]

*** Edit to add post 9 Dec 2019 ***

Ok..just kidding. I'm not upgrading. It's horsemuck that this setup is being kicked straight in the junk by such poor hardware utilization. That being said I saw basically ZERO increase when overclocking everything. Utilization is abismal. Am I missing something? Only 2 cores are being tasked and the gpu is sitting around playing with itself waiting for the cpu.

Cpu - Overclocked to 4.7
Mem - Overclocked to 2800 xmp
GPU - Overclocked +100 core + 500 mem

all this vs stock = no benefit. And seeing how the 6700k vs 9700k in games is about 10% diff...What the heck do I do next to prevent seeing such poor utilization and fps when the save game gets long in the tooth?

This is in both Linux and Windows on ver 2.6 with hotfixes

Seriously devs...What the heck do I do? Is the situation in 3.0 any better? Is it EVER going to be optimized? Do I have to wait for quantum processor upgrade?

[Alan Phipps]

I don't see a proper tech support request here and with no actual technical information about your current performance (ie situational fps), game (ie modded or not) or system (ie a link to a DxDiag) the question seems pretty rhetorical anyway.

I am playing vanilla 2.60 quite nicely on now-elderly hardware: an i7-3820 quad core CPU @ 3.60GHz, an AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB VRAM and 16 GB RAM, all with no overclocks.

[spookywatcher]

Well yes and no about being rhetorical. I've scoured the interwebs looking for all info about the cpu limits of this game and have come up with nothing that helps. And I honestly don't think upgrading to the 9900k(s)(f)(ks) will net any real gains. Getting 47 fps on platform @ 1440p medium details and msaa x 2. Staring at the sun in open space gets me 93 fps. Staring at open space away from stations gets me 133 fps. This is on a new game no saves ver 2.6 w/ hotfixes. Once I've playing a while it starts going south. Only two cores being utilized (Yes I read CBJ's post(s)). Hyperthreading on/off no real difference. So other than spending $2400 for a 2080ti + 9900ks + new Mobo, What can someone do? Sit n wait? Out of ALL the posts I have read from devs I haven't seen anything that even hinted that they are working on better core uts

Will / does ver 3.0 improve hardware utilization? What about ver 4? 5? Are they going to optimize it or just let it be?

Code: Select all

System:    Host: xxxx-Desktop Kernel: 4.15.0-70-generic x86_64 (64 bit gcc: 5.4.0)
           Desktop: Cinnamon 3.6.7 (Gtk 3.18.9-1ubuntu3.3) Distro: Linux Mint 18.3 Sylvia
Machine:   Mobo: ASUSTeK model: STRIX B250H GAMING v: Rev X.0x Bios: American Megatrends v: 1205 date: 05/11/2018
CPU:       Quad core Intel Core i7-6700K (-HT-MCP-) cache: 8192 KB
           flags: (lm nx sse sse2 sse3 sse4_1 sse4_2 ssse3 vmx) bmips: 32064
           clock speeds: max: 4200 MHz 1: 800 MHz 2: 800 MHz 3: 800 MHz 4: 800 MHz 5: 800 MHz 6: 800 MHz
           7: 800 MHz 8: 800 MHz
Graphics:  Card: NVIDIA GP102 [GeForce GTX 1080 Ti] bus-ID: 01:00.0
           Display Server: X.Org 1.18.4 driver: nvidia Resolution: 2560x1440@144.00hz
           GLX Renderer: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti/PCIe/SSE2 GLX Version: 4.6.0 NVIDIA 410.78 Direct Rendering: Yes
Audio:     Card-1 Intel 200 Series PCH HD Audio driver: snd_hda_intel bus-ID: 00:1f.3
           Card-2 NVIDIA GP102 HDMI Audio Controller driver: snd_hda_intel bus-ID: 01:00.1
           Sound: Advanced Linux Sound Architecture v: k4.15.0-70-generic
Network:   Card: Intel Ethernet Connection (2) I219-V driver: e1000e v: 3.2.6-k bus-ID: 00:1f.6
           IF: enp0s31f6 state: up speed: 1000 Mbps duplex: full mac: <filter>
Drives:    HDD Total Size: 1000.2GB (13.4% used) ID-1: /dev/nvme1n1 model: N/A size: 500.1GB
           ID-2: /dev/nvme0n1 model: N/A size: 500.1GB ID-3: /dev/sda model: WDC_WD5000AZRX size: 500.1GB
           ID-4: /dev/sdb model: Samsung_SSD_860 size: 500.1GB
Partition: ID-1: / size: 32G used: 8.8G (29%) fs: ext4 dev: /dev/nvme0n1p2
           ID-2: /home size: 412G used: 103G (27%) fs: ext4 dev: /dev/nvme0n1p3
           ID-3: swap-1 size: 16.00GB used: 0.00GB (0%) fs: swap dev: /dev/nvme0n1p1
RAID:      No RAID devices: /proc/mdstat, md_mod kernel module present
Sensors:   System Temperatures: cpu: 29.8C mobo: 27.8C gpu: 0.0:46C
           Fan Speeds (in rpm): cpu: 0
Info:      Processes: 227 Uptime: 59 min Memory: 1308.7/15985.9MB Init: systemd runlevel: 5 Gcc sys: 5.4.0
           Client: Shell (bash 4.3.481) inxi: 2.2.35 

Yes I know my b250h does not allow overclocks. I just put that board back in instead of my z270p-ds3 because of dual nvme and back panel sound output

*** edited *** to add = My windows performs almost exactly the same performance wise.

[geronimo3]

i think you already answered your questions yourself. i read in your post that you already researched the forums on this, and found cbj´s statement that x4 is running on two main tasks on two cores. there is no way how you can play x4 in complex situations (eg. near large complexes, lots of traffic, mpas open ....) with 80+ fps nowadays. i personally play x4 on two machines, a 7700hq with 32gb 2400mhz ram and a 1070gtx card (predator g9-793) on nvme ssd, and a desktop equipped with a ryzen 3700x, 32gb 3600mhz ram and a gtx1660 ti card also on nvme ssd. i have build fairly big complexes, and around them with all the associated traffic i go down to 20fps, but i treat is still as playable. i´am not hunting for max fps. the lesson i have learned that i build smaller complexes when i start a new game after release of split vendetta. what wonders me a little are the reports on low utilized graphics cards, my 1660th is running at 2000mhz with approx 60-80% utilization in complex situations, so in my game the graphics card is also heavy utilized.

[Buzz2005]

getting 47 fps while on stations is very very good btw

defends on station too

[spookywatcher]

getting 47 fps while on stations is very very good btw

defends on station too

Yikes. Ok..guess I'll just let this dog lie.

[Imperial Good]

X4 is seldom GPU bottlenecked. For example I run with pretty high FPS on a GTX 760 and pretty much everything maxed except the very demanding effects like ambient occlusion or screen space reflections.

Upgrading to a 9900K would net you about 10% or more frames per second at least. One will be surprised how much a small differences in single thread performance matters, especially in scenes with very low frame rate. That said good performance is not required to play X4, I was using an non-OCed I7 920 to play until recently and X4 still worked. Yes some platforms were single digit frame rate and I had to pause to use map view, but still playable.

[foxmaster]

I have build new PC here is my result between old and new PC:
New Computer X4 3.0 Beta 29-128% better performance
My old PC is about 6 years old,
I have over 900 houer in this game X4.
Nice better performance up to 128% faster.
Maybe I could save lot of money change memory to 32Gb, Power supply to 1200W but want quite computer 1600W dont use fan under 600W, another graphic cards and less radiator push and pull fans on the 5 radiators.
New monitor 27" LG 27GL850 gaming, is about same FPS with 1440 at new PC.
Maybe this test help some who think build new custom PC.

My old PC spec.
Motherboard=MSI Z87 MPOWER MAX
CPU= Intel I7 4770K 3.5GHz @ 4.3GHz
CPU cooler Corsair Hydro H110
Memory= DDR3 1600MHz 32Gbyte CL9,9,9,24
GPU= MSI Geforce GTX980 TI Lightning 6Gbyte
HD= C: SATA SSD Samsung 256Gbyte 840 Pro for OS W10
D: SATA SSD Samsung 1Tbyte 850 Pro for games
E: SATA SSD Samsung 1Tbyte 860 Evo for games
Power Supply 1000W

My new PC spec.
Motherboard=MSI MEG Z390 GODLIKE
CPU= Intel I9 9900KF 3.6GHz @ 5.1GHz
CPU Cooler custom loop EKWB
Memory= DDR4 3400MHz 64Gbyte CL18,19,19,39
GPU= MSI Geforce GTX2080 TI SEA HAWK EK 11Gbyte
HD= C: PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD Samsung 1Tbyte 970 EVO Plus for OS W10 & another program.
D: PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD Samsung 2Tbyte 970 EVO Plus for only gaming.
Power Supply 1600W

Graphic Settings 1920x1080
FXAA= Low
No Vsync
Colour correction= Off
Gamma= 100
Texture= High
Shadows= Off
Soft Shadow= On
SSAO= Off
Glow= Low
Distortion= On
LOD= 100
Effect distance= 75
Radar= High
Screen space reflection= Off
HQ video capture= Off

Start menu performance: +72-74%
I7-4770K FPS = 276-282
I9-9900KF FPS = 475-492

Performance in X4 after 925 Houer playing:
Sector Faulty Logic I, near the gate and lot of asteroids and wrecks big armada with ships, 2 big defence station. +51-54%
I7-4770K FPS = 33-48
I9-9900KF FPS = 50-74

Boron plot station Grand Exchange I:
Around docs ships walking around at station +50-87%
I7-4770K FPS = 24-38
I9-9900KF FPS = 45-57

Walk inside station +33%
I7-4770K FPS = 42-48
I9-9900KF FPS = 56-64

New game start:
Fly ship inside station +33-44%
I7-4770K FPS = 90
I9-9900KF FPS = 120-130

Fly outside around station +80-128%
I7-4770K FPS = 60-70
I9-9900KF FPS = 108-160

Fly faar away from station +29-58%
I7-4770K FPS = 98-126
I9-9900KF FPS =155-162

[Meme Turtle]

Thank you foxmaster. I am doing similar upgrade from 7 year old system(3770k+1070) to 9900k+2080ti and now know what to expect. Even my on my current system the game is quite playable with almost everything on ultra. The worst frame rate I get being docked at my HQ mega complex ~15-25 FPS. Open space and battles is much more stable at around 50-60 FPS on version 2.6.

X games are always ahead the available hardware. I believe the only way to play the game with a high frame rate is to create an interpolated video and pretend it is an interactive movie.

[spookywatcher]

@foxmaster Awesome post! Thank You. Definitely helps me decide to NOT upgrade. Maybe after they optimize the game more (if they do this) and wait for next gen(s) cpu/gpu e.g. r3990 + rtx 3080

Upgrading the 6700k and 1080ti is just not worth it at this point.

[foxmaster]

I have new monitor LG 27GL850 run the game now at 2560x1440 with new computer I cant see any performance drop FPS looks same as i post for 1920x1080

[spookywatcher]

So I believe I was wrong in my assessment.

I started to delve more into the seemingly indecipherable bottle necks.

It appears to be sometimes I am GPU limited and other times I am CPU limited. And it changes rapidly during course of play.

Again I have the 6700k + 1080ti. I put the other mobo back in to overclock the 6700k to 4.6. I was only using the in game FPS counter but decided to overlay msi afterburner's usage temps etc etc.

Settings are 1440p medium details msaa x 2

What I found was any time the "Sun" was in field of view I am GPU limited it was pegged at 100% usage. GPU was maxed out and CPU was sitting there waiting on GPU. 99% of the time (when not looking at the "sun") I am cpu limited two cores pegged at around 47-50%. But the cpu usage is reporting in a weird way. It was never showing any core at 100%. I believe that is because it'll max a thread out not the entire core which is why it'll show Core 1 at 50% and core 3 at 47% as an example.

I overclocked again to 4.6 on the cpu and 2800 on the mem and left the GPU at stock. And for some reason now (not sure what is different) I'm getting no less than 87 fps on platforms / stations (This is the lowest I got when sitting on the platform and looking at the sun with lots of traffic). When looking at the sun in open space I'm getting 93 fps (gpu limited) when flying around I'm capped at vsync 144 fps. With map up I'm getting no less than 103 fps.

The only thing I can think of with the better performance was when swapping out the mobo, I did the driver dance like always and it appears to have been a happier dance? <shrug> dunno.

So TLDR

Sometimes I am GPU limited and sometimes I am CPU limited and it changes very rapidly in the game. Overclocking cpu to 4.6 ghz with maybe a happier driver dance has made a remarkable improvement.

[Buzz2005]

if you divide all those FPS numbers you mentioned by 3 then we would have a problem