Are any of you running the new Ivy Bridge hardware (22nm tech) with the GTX 680? Would love a PIREP!

Doubtful. I'm running a 680 without ivy bridge and x-plane doesn't want to play. The new 300 series drivers area causing issues with x plane and since thier required to run the new 680, there's nothing to do. Hopefully the issue will sort itself out soon.

 

Jess B

I'm waiting for a new computer with those. No pre-installed OS, I'll put Linux on it and see how these new components go along with Ubuntu and X-plane10.

Will reports.

 

The best thing with Intel's Ivy Bridge is not the speed, but the fact that it supports 3rd generation PCIe. That means double the banwidth toward the GPU.

 

Pascal

I am currently running the 680 in X-Plane. FPS have been seen as high as 110fps at ground level. I run a resolution of 2560 x 1440 and where this card REALLY shines is in fill rate situations (heavy clouds on a big monitor, etc.). I run at extreme texture settings and near maxed out settings. Typical FPS on the ground at KSEA in the CRJ run about 45-50 fps. Really impressive to say the least, and this is with the SandyBridge i5.

 

I know it's not all of what you were asking for, but without a doubt, the 680 is very impressive. I upgraded from a GTX 580 SOC which didn't handle the fill rate near as well.

Hi Cameron,

 

How are you getting the 680 running. X-plane steadfastly refuses to start with my set up, sticking at the world init screen. I wonder if it's an issue with the nvidia surround settings I'm using? Stretching over 3 monitors could be the cause. Hmmmmm

 

Jess B

Hi, Jess,

 

I can't imagine three screens would cause any hiccup, but I suppose some things never cease to amaze me these days. An easy test would be to unplug one monitor and see what happens then.

 

I have no hangups at all (X-Plane 10 naturally takes a while to load initially, but once it gets going it's great), and am using the latest non-beta version of drivers provided by NVidia.

Will check that out a little later Cameron. I know a few people have had problems with the nvidia drivers but are using the older 500 series cards, so a rollback solves the problem. Either way, I'll check it on a single screen and report back.

 

Jess B

Ok some interesting results to report.

 

Cameron is right, on a single screen x plane boots fine and the 680 flies. The problem is defiantly with the surround settings. X Plane will not load when surround is set up. Interestingly though, if you set your displays up using the standard 'multiple monitors' tab to be displayed across all three. Then x plane loads up and you can set the screen size to 5670x1080 which works just as well as surround does, minus the bezel correction. (btw across the 3 screens the 680 kicks the 7970 out of the park.). So it looks like its the surround settings that nvidia are having issues.

 

 

I have noticed in general the full screen mode just doesn't work right, I get a ridiculously better experience playing in a 1920x1080 window than in full screen mode.

re. GTX 680:

 

"the fact that it supports 3rd generation PCIe. That means double the banwidth toward the GPU"

 

which means exactly what for framerates?

 

nothing. zero.

 

exactly.

re. GTX 680:

 

"the fact that it supports 3rd generation PCIe. That means double the banwidth toward the GPU"

 

which means exactly what for framerates?

 

nothing. zero.

 

exactly.

 

You do know how bottleneck work, don't you ? everything is fine until you hit the limit, and then the framerate drops dramatically. I have a PCIe bus v1, and I know for a fact that X-plane asks for much more banwidth. IMHO it won't be long before we hit the PCIe v.2 limit, especially with X-plane 64bits coming.

You do know how bottleneck work, don't you ? everything is fine until you hit the limit, and then the framerate drops dramatically. I have a PCIe bus v1, and I know for a fact that X-plane asks for much more banwidth. IMHO it won't be long before we hit the PCIe v.2 limit, especially with X-plane 64bits coming.

 

Exactly!

PCIe 3.0 based memory transfers to the GPU are not the biggest of all x-plane performance stoppers, they are the least important of all issues compared to the majority of current PCIe 2.0 GPUs. PCIe 2.0 is plenty and does not impose a "bottleneck" for x-plane. overclock your 6core CPU to 4.6 GHz or more if you can, then you will see some performance improvement that is noticable. PCIe 3.0 is marketing hype as far as FSX and x-plane are concerned.

 

exactly.

PCIe 3.0 based memory transfers to the GPU are not the biggest of all x-plane performance stoppers, they are the least important of all issues compared to the majority of current PCIe 2.0 GPUs. PCIe 2.0 is plenty and does not impose a "bottleneck" for x-plane. overclock your 6core CPU to 4.6 GHz or more if you can, then you will see some performance improvement that is noticable. PCIe 3.0 is marketing hype as far as FSX and x-plane are concerned.

 

exactly.

 

Tell that same story to the same main programmer at Laminar I have been talking to for months about this issue.

 

I'm sorry, but for X-Plane it does matter....so long as your CPU is not bottlenecking you first, and there are a number of people who are able to reach near or to this limit where the added bandwidth can and will help.