GPU on a CPU, I thought that is what a videocard was for...

[RobbieHe 0]

My knowledge-base of FS hardware remains 5 plus years back. I sort of lost interest when I realized it would be years into the future before FSX would be really ready to perform because of hardware limitations. Now that hardware has (or is) catching up, do the GPUs that Intel are installing on their CPUs help FSX in anyway? Is this something we should be looking at? Could some of you smart, hardware-savvy flight simmers explain to me why they are putting GPUs on a CPU (That's what I thought videocards were for) and if now (or in the future) this will help FSX in terms of performance. I'd really appreciate an explanation from an experienced FSX user.Thanks in advance!RH

[vyper883 20]

The new architecture Intel CPU's now have built-in graphics. They are far better, than any motherboard integrated graphics solutions of the past, and can even perform satisfactory for some casual gaming at low/medium graphics settings of today's games. It is mostly for budget reasons, and to offer a consumer a reasonable performing machine on a budget. From a pure performance standpoint they won't do much good, for hard core gaming, or simming for that matter.

 

The short answer, I would never consider it for FSX, or any flight sim. You are far better off, with a dedicated GPU solution.

 

I don't know how long you've been out of the "scene" so-to-speak, but even with today's hardware, FSX can still lead to the quest for better performance. Albeit, things have gotten much better than they were 5 years ago. There is literally a wealth of info out there, and in this forum, for optimizing your OS, hardware, and FSX itself.

 

What you will hear the most, is that FSX is heavily CPU bound. During FSX's development about 7 years ago, multi-core processors were not really anticipated, and as such FSX is not optimized properly in the concept of parallel processing, or hyperthreading.

 

Developers were leaning on the premise that single-core processors would still be in the mainstream with their speeds increasing every year. That did not really happen, so the Aces Team released SP1 and subsequently SP2 to try to help FSX make better use of multiple cores. That is almost impossible, without FSX RTM being rewritten, as it has already been hardcoded into the software to NOT be multi-core optimized.

 

There are some tweaks that can "kinda sorta" coax FSX to make better use of a multi-core environment, and for the most part FSX is totally acceptable within today's hardware offerings. I for one am quite happy running a Core i7 920 @ 4.00Ghz with an Nvidia GTX 480 which is now a system of over two years ago.

 

On a personal note, never forget that FSX, like any sim, is trying to reproduce a big chunk of the globe on your screen at any given time. There is a lot going on. Autogen, other AI traffic, aircraft systems, special animations, ATC which is vectoring not only YOUR aircraft, but all the other AI aircraft in the vicinity in real time..... The list goes on and on. It's a wonder that FSX runs at all. MS's new offering Microsoft Flight, runs very well, but even it, can induce performance issues with all graphics settings to the MAX. And so far, FLIGHT has only Hawaii to render.

 

Another example, is Laminar research' latest offering X-Plane 10. In a nutshell, it as well cannot be run with everything to the max. That's what happens when you are trying to faithfully to reproduce a living breathing world, with thousands of miles of detail radius around you.

 

No other software game is required to do that. Using a FPS title as an example, the environment created "ends" somewhere close, but you can't see it. There is small map, but beyond that there is nothingness, but you are given an illusion of being in a vast area. Also, other than the map, the only calculations that are taking place are your playable character, and the AI enemies, and possibly any online opponents. literally nothing compared the the world that a simulation is trying reproduce.

 

Sadly, the ACES team was dispatched over a year ago. There will be no SP3, or any further support, even though the game is still available for purchase. Even at it's age, it is still THE most complete flight simulation offering out there IMO.

 

I know I took off on a long story here, but I hope you find some insight within it Robbie. Cheers.

[Manny 1,293]

Can you use, both the video card out as well as the MB video out at the same time?

 

Manny

[vyper883 20]

I suppose if you wanted to, you could. Although performance would be mismatched.

 

But it depends what you intend to do with the set up. If for instance you were planning on dragging gauges onto the second monitor via MOBO integrated GPU within CPU, It would work. Make sure you run FSX off the dedicated video card. Also, check the BIOS to make sure that the Video card is the primary video source.

[Manny 1,293]

My main interest in using these MB video out is for HW CDUs or HW GPS (Garmin 530) etc... Instead of using an USB based monitor, could we use this for small monitors. Like you said, Drag the Reality XP Garmin G 530 over to this small monitor.

 

Use the primary card (GTX 680) for your front 3monitors? The 4th video (from the GTX 680) out for something else... Maybe Left window view.

 

:)

 

I read somewhere in some forum that if you use a Video card, the system disables the video out from the MB. Not sure how valid/true that is.

 

 

 

Manny

[vyper883 20]

In the case of the 680, when you are in surround mode (3+1 monitors) I don't think you can drag anything to the forth monitor, as it is not included in surround gaming mode. It might be possible if FSX is in windowed mode, but I don't know that for sure. From what I understand nvidia's surround mode will not allow a forth monitor into the mix, and it is only dedicated to desktop and other apps (email, browsing ect).

 

In that regard a triplehead2go setup is far more flexible, and will allow another monitor on a second output of the videocard. FSX will see it and you can use it to drag instrumentation onto it. As far as the videocard is concerned, the TH2GO is just a single ultra wide monitor, and the" fourth" monitor is seen as a second monitor to the videocard and windows.

 

For example, I run a 480 with a Matrox TH2GO digital. This allows me to use a fourth 3M touchscreen monitor, on the vid card's second output, where I drag my PMDG 737 NGX FMC, MFD, and ND DU's. And this is done in fullscreen FSX- not windowed.

 

Now if you use Nvidia surround on your primary 680, and introduce a fourth monitor, with say a second video card be it MB/CPU based, or a dedicated card, then yes. You can use a fourth monitor on it for your instruments, in both fullscreen or windowed mode, I would think.

 

I'm in the market for a 680 myself, and I'm really curious to see how surround performs compared to my TH2GO, with trying different monitor configurations.

 

As far as the MB detecting the card, that may be the case as you said, but some M/B's have to be "told" which is the primary output, via the BIOS.

[Manny 1,293]

vyper883

 

Is your conclusion based on speculation or have you actually tried this out?

 

My understanding is, that yes for surround sound you can only use 3 monitors and not 4. But what would prevent you from displaying a gauge and then right clicking only that gauge and turning it into a small window and then dragging it over the the 4th monitor like you can do using Matrox?

 

Manny

[vyper883 20]

You need to go back and read my post again. Particularly the first paragraph. I never said I was sure about anything regarding Nvidia's surround. I don't have a 680 yet, so I won't know how surround mode would handle FSX in fullscreen with a fourth monitor.

 

It seems pretty logical that in windowed mode you should be able to undock windows and drag them to the fourth monitor.