This game is still mostly single core and cpu limited?

[Destroy]

Reading in here I'm shocked to see so many cpu complaints or issues.

I thought this game was newly coded with true multi-core and past the FSX issue of 'cpu speed is king'?

[Rever]

It is multi-thread, but their must always be a main thread that handles the critical calculations. Trying to do all the physics calculations that determine the position of the plane is a big task.

Flight sims will always be CPU intensive. Just think of all the extra aerodynamic calculations that are needed that other games just don't deal with.

[Narf]

The game was never single core limited. It has shown reliable usage of multiple cores ever since its release. I usually see at least 4 threads maxing out simultaneously when I run into a CPU limit, with other threads seing less load.

Whether it's CPU or GPU limited depends on your hardware and settings, as any other game.

[ZombieHunter]

This game is not single core nor cpu limited nor does a game being single core make much sense from a technical standpoint. As far as threads, you can't just spawn a billion and get magic performance. Everything costs and nothing is free. More threads means more potential wait states or wait states upon wait states and those get expensive. Also threads and multi core are not the same thing. You can have a single core CPU and still run multi threaded applications.

[ждун]

Weird im almost never CPU bound for me with RTX 3070 and Rayzen 7 3700x in VR. Always GPU bound. Only when its loading in the beginning of flight its CPU bound. Once everything is loaded CPU is running usualy 50-80% (over mostly two to four cores) and GPU is 100% all the time delivering 30-40fps (VR) with my settings.

[Schmegg]

Originally posted by ZombieHunter:

This game is not single core nor cpu limited nor does a game being single core make much sense from a technical standpoint. As far as threads, you can't just spawn a billion and get magic performance. Everything costs and nothing is free. More threads means more potential wait states or wait states upon wait states and those get expensive. Also threads and multi core are not the same thing. You can have a single core CPU and still run multi threaded applications.

Mostly true - but you can't say with any certainty that the game is not CPU limited - in fact, the claim is ridiculous. It depends, as Narf says, on your hardware and settings.

[F-22raptor]

kinda. Especially at ultra settings. High its okay. Its mainly the terrain streaming that is cpu heavy. But its also multi core heavy. 5600x hits 100% when looking around a lot. So its not a coding this game is just super cpu heavy.
Expected due to how vast this game is. But you dont need a high fps 40 is pretty good for a game like this.

[ZombieHunter]

Threads and cores are not 1 to 1. This is a huge misnomer. With 4 cores what it means is you can execute 4 threads simultaneously. An application can have any number of threads. Also truth be told most threads are waiting for something to happen. For instance there is a thread in FS 2020 listening to the socket for incoming traffic. And there is likely a thread processing an outgoing buffer that sends data out. There is likely a thread handling device and keyboard input and a thread handling sound. I know there is a thread handling sound b/c I've had the ATC crap out and the rest of the game ran fine and did not hang. There might even be a thread for certain kinds of sounds and a thread for ATC voices. There is probably a thread to run the instrument panels update loop. There is a thread listening for weather updates and a thread to process those updates. The optimal number of threads is achieved through trial and error. It is usually more than the core count.

There is far too much going on in FS 2020 to be single threaded. But remember just b/c you have <X> cores does not mean all of them are in use at all times even if the game spawns threads. The Windows Scheduler figures all of this out and it can run threads on whatever core it deems necessary and it can run the exe on whatever core it deems necessary. It could run the main thread for FS 2020 on core 1 and the sound thread for FS 2020 on core 1 if it wanted to. You would never be able to tell with the default Windows tools like Task Manager b/c it doesn't break it down enough as to what is going on. What you see is an aggregate usage over time. It is nearly useless. Also there is asynchronous programming which does not have to be threaded but can be.

You would be hard pressed today to develop a game that only uses the main thread. That kind of development is long gone. Desktop applications don't even do that. In Microsoft Word when you spellcheck the document but the UI remains responsive and you can still edit the document that is a sure sign the spellcheck is running on a thread. At any given time on your system there are thousands of threads running in the background.

[Narf]

Originally posted by ZombieHunter:

With 4 cores what it means is you can execute 4 threads simultaneously.

Actually, the vast majority of cores these past few years use hyperthreading and thus have two threads per core. The current intel generation is a mixed package with hyperthreading on the p-cores and no hyperthreading on the e-cores, which results in stuff like the 12700 having 20 threads while having 12 cores (8 p-cores @ 2 threads + 4 e-cores = 20 threads).

[Fiswiz]

Idk what to say to such comments meybe try it yourself: task manager -> right click flight simulator.exe process -> set affinity and select cpu 0 nothing else. Then youll see if you are clever or dumb.

[Duke Dudeston]

Originally posted by Fiswiz:

Idk what to say to such comments meybe try it yourself: task manager -> right click flight simulator.exe process -> set affinity and select cpu 0 nothing else. Then youll see if you are clever or dumb.

Shudders at the thought.

[ZombieHunter]

Originally posted by Narf:

Originally posted by ZombieHunter:

With 4 cores what it means is you can execute 4 threads simultaneously.

Actually, the vast majority of cores these past few years use hyperthreading and thus have two threads per core. The current intel generation is a mixed package with hyperthreading on the p-cores and no hyperthreading on the e-cores, which results in stuff like the 12700 having 20 threads while having 12 cores (8 p-cores @ 2 threads + 4 e-cores = 20 threads).

Yep. That is SMT right and only Intel? I read something about Intel being able to interweave 2 threads on one core by doing some kind of instruction swapping. It sounded eerily similar to asynchronous (non threaded) C#.

I'm not sure what the end performance results are. Sometimes super cool tech sounds awesome but the real world result is less than stellar.

[Narf]

Originally posted by ZombieHunter:

Originally posted by Narf:

Actually, the vast majority of cores these past few years use hyperthreading and thus have two threads per core. The current intel generation is a mixed package with hyperthreading on the p-cores and no hyperthreading on the e-cores, which results in stuff like the 12700 having 20 threads while having 12 cores (8 p-cores @ 2 threads + 4 e-cores = 20 threads).

Yep. That is SMT right and only Intel? I read something about Intel being able to interweave 2 threads on one core by doing some kind of instruction swapping. It sounded eerily similar to asynchronous (non threaded) C#.

It's just Intel's name for SMT, yes, but it's absolutely not only Intel. In fact, the only reason Intel now has SMT on their cheaper processors is because AMD has it on all of theirs. When AMD had no competitive processor models they only had it on their high level products.

And it's not like that's new tech, SMT has been around since forever.

[ZombieHunter]

Originally posted by Narf:

Originally posted by ZombieHunter:

Yep. That is SMT right and only Intel? I read something about Intel being able to interweave 2 threads on one core by doing some kind of instruction swapping. It sounded eerily similar to asynchronous (non threaded) C#.

It's just Intel's name for SMT, yes, but it's absolutely not only Intel. In fact, the only reason Intel now has SMT on their cheaper processors is because AMD has it on all of theirs. When AMD had no competitive processor models they only had it on their high level products.

And it's not like that's new tech, SMT has been around since forever.

Yeah I honestly don't keep up with the latest greatest stuff b/c it constantly changes and it would be a full time job to do so. I only come up to speed when its time for a new build or run into something at work that requires a bit more knowledge of the hardware than I currently have. It is just impossible to know everything in computers or computer science. Way too much stuff and it changes at the speed of light. If I had a dime for every new framework or piece of hardware that does this but better and this but worse but we should use it just for the sake of it being new I could retire as a wealthy man.

[Schmegg]

Originally posted by ZombieHunter:

Originally posted by Narf:

It's just Intel's name for SMT, yes, but it's absolutely not only Intel. In fact, the only reason Intel now has SMT on their cheaper processors is because AMD has it on all of theirs. When AMD had no competitive processor models they only had it on their high level products.

And it's not like that's new tech, SMT has been around since forever.

Yeah I honestly don't keep up with the latest greatest stuff b/c it constantly changes and it would be a full time job to do so.

Like Narf says - it's been around for ages. Not really something that would've 'snuck in' since your last build - unless your PC is more than 14 years old. XD

[Narf]

SMT has been invented in the 1990s and has been in the wide consumer market CPUs for well over a decade now, You're acting as if it was the newest stuff or just some obscure thing that might not matter much. It's widely considered one of the biggest inventions in the modern CPU architecture landscape.