What's the best upgrade for me? CPU vs. GPU vs. Monitor

[Neilski]

I did a couple hours playing with settings last night and found my CPU is not really hitting 100% much at all, it average below 80% most of the time except in stations. I am still not really sure why and neither the CPU or GPU maxed out, the FPS just drops.... it must be an odyssey thing.

Adding to Morbad's comments on this bit: when you are CPU-limited, it's not always at 100% CPU utilisation. It is often the case that a multi-threaded game will lean more heavily on one or two of the threads relative to the others. The most extreme/trivial example would be a single-threaded game, where its usage can never exceed 25% on your 4-core CPU.

Comparing a 6500 vs 7700K vs 12600 (current CPU, best upgrade in that socket, and a plausible Intel option on a new board) for single thread performance ratings here, you get: 2123 vs 2732 vs 3876.
That's an incredible leap up in single-threaded* performance with the 12th gen relative to what you have now. Even the 7th gen is OK, but I'd agree that even the second-hand pricing for it isn't very attractive in terms of value. My own 7700K can just about handle EDO, but asking it to run OBS at the same time is proving iffy.
(* The multi-threaded improvement is much larger of course, given 4 vs 8 vs 12 execution units.)

 

[Element Priest]

Better HOTAS for long range accuracy.

 

[Pville_Piper]

Monitor isn't going to change the game's performance. You can already run sub-native resolutions and upscale it to the display's resolution by a variety of in and out of game means, if you need to...but you probably don't with a 1070 Ti.

Actually that's not totally true... If you have enough GPU (he doesn't) the work load of the CPU when running a resolution higher than 1080p will be less as the GPU will assume more work, which is why they test CPUs at 1080p but, GPUs are usually done at the common resolutions all the way up to 4k. Realistically, with the OP's setup, going to a higher resolution monitor would be a bad thing. Beware of upgrading your monitor to 1440p or higher as it will demand a much better GPU depending on what games you play.

I'd try going for a newer AMD such as the Ryzen™ 5 5600 and decent motherboard if your existing ram is at least 3200mhz. And then upgrading your GPU maybe next year and which one you get should take into consideration the monitor you desire. If you're going to stick with 1080p, the GPU is less critical but stepping up to 1440p monitor, 1440p widescreen or 4k will substantially increase the demands on a GPU, particularly if you want to run at high refresh rates and high settings.

 

[Morbad]

Actually that's not totally true... If you have enough GPU (he doesn't) the work load of the CPU when running a resolution higher than 1080p will be less as the GPU will assume more work, which is why they test CPUs at 1080p but, GPUs are usually done at the common resolutions all the way up to 4k.

If the GPU is maxed out, then yes, CPU load will be lower than it would be otherwise, as it will be waiting for the GPU.

Realistically, with the OP's setup, going to a higher resolution monitor would be a bad thing. Beware of upgrading your monitor to 1440p or higher as it will demand a much better GPU depending on what games you play.

The game has enough graphics options to maintain the frame rate with a resolution bump (within reason) on a GPU like a 1070ti, and a resolution increase isn't mandatory just because the display supports it. If necessary, 1080p can be used on a 1440p display and still look better than 1080p on a 1080p display, with marginal overhead.

 

[CmdrKafka]

I’ll do some tests when I get home and post my gpu usage graphs but from what I recall it’s not anywhere near maxed out on borderless 1920x1080 on default high settings. Neither is the CPU, although it’s a lot closer. Stay tuned, I’ll post the graphs later….

 

[CmdrKafka]

Ok, here is a performance graph with three activities, from left to right over several minutes of gameplay. I'd say this shows I am very CPU bound because the GPU barely goes over 50% the whole time and is often well below that in the 30's (top left chart is the GPU). Even when I overclock my GPU it really does nothing because it's the CPU hitting 100% here and there that seems to be the real limit. If I can pickup a cheap CPU upgrade it would be better, but ultimately I think I'd rather just get a whole new motherboard with Ryzen 7+, even if I have to use my old 1070ti it will be a HUGE improvement that way.

1. Normal empty space where I entered the game, no other ships FPS is solid 74FPS
2. Supercruise to station FPS is solid 74 FPS
3. At the station, fly around it and dock FPS drops into the 60's and fluctuates a bit, goes into the low 60's once I enter the mailslot, saw a couple 58's briefly

 

[Morbad]

You're almost completely CPU limited in stations, but it looks like you probably have a frame rate cap (or vsync) at 74 fps.

 

[CmdrKafka]

You're almost completely CPU limited in stations, but it looks like you probably have a frame rate cap (or vsync) at 74 fps.

My monitor is 75hz and for some reason it has to be set at 74 to work, so yes that is my maximum right now unless I get a better monitor. I don't mind buying a better larger 1440p 27" 144hz monitor, I think it might help my long range combat because I'll just be able to see better, even if my framerate is roughly the same. It is very hard to land a precise railgun shot at 5km away with my current setup.

 

[Morbad]

My monitor is 75hz and for some reason it has to be set at 74 to work

What has to be set at 74 to work? The refresh rate itself?

Anyway, if you want to see what's limiting you in high frame rate areas, you'll need to turn off vsync and/or your frame rate limiter.

 

[CmdrKafka]

What has to be set at 74 to work? The refresh rate itself?

Anyway, if you want to see what's limiting you in high frame rate areas, you'll need to turn off vsync and/or your frame rate limiter.

When I set the display settings to 75hz the monitor gives me an 'out of range' error and won't display anything. I created a custom profile in the nvidia control panel for 1920x1080 at 74hz and it works. In ED display settings it gives me only one option for refresh rate... 74hz, and I have frame rate limit turned off, I am not sure where to turn vsync off, I will take a look tonight when I am home again. Obviously it will never go beyond 74 with these settings but it would be interesting to see how high it could go if I had a better monitor. The one I have was a pretty low cost Asus monitor, under $200 iirc but I liked the 1ms/75hz specs at the time for the price.
Note: graphics settings are 'high' and I am using EDO, have not tried Horizons for a long time.


Edit: Just tried vsync off with no fps limit, ULTRA settings FPS is 180fps in empty space or SC deep space, drops to around 90fps around planetary bodies in SC, drops to 60fps around the station. CPU is definitely higher on average in the 90% area now. Haven't tried any combat yet, but this is certainly interesting and I don't see any particular degradation in my video quality so far.