No performance increase from 560ti to 680 FTW+ 4 Gb

[Guest]

DX10 is really where you want to be with this 680 4GB -- and DX11 is even better aka XP10

 

But specifically you will reduce your memory requirements by using DX10 - other benefit (adapted from Wiki):

 

• Texture arrays enable swapping of textures in GPU without CPU intervention.
  
• Instancing 2.0 support, allowing multiple instances of similar meshes, such as armies, or grass or trees, to be rendered in a single draw call, reducing the processing time needed for multiple similar objects to that of a single one.
  

 

There are still a few other issues here and there with DX10 and not ALL 3rd party works, but for the most part Steve's update fixed A LOT.

[paul123 5]

The issue now, Paul, is the 4.5gig proc. The 560Ti was a good match for it, but the 680 is not.

 

Your proc may well be working overtime with the high settings, but without seeing your fsx.cfg (which you could attach here - as Paul_FSX.txt) I reckon that new gpu needs some work to do. It's probably sitting there, waiting... waiting... :smile:

I can't believe that a 4.5 processor is not enough for the 680 Paul, just tweaked it to 4.6, looks like I will be sending the 680 back.

[blueshark747 1,843]

Who the hell wants to use DX10 when we have awesome mods like ENB and forced AA.

[Guest]

Who the hell wants to use DX10 when we have awesome mods like ENB and forced AA.

 

Not sure I understand this, but ok -- just trying to help Paul realize the benefit of his 680 4GB card in FSX. The reason you want to use DX10 is for better visuals, less memory usage, improved performance.

 

The i5 series isn't the best choice of processor regardless of clock speed ... and your motherboard is PCIe 2.0 not PCIe 3.0 ... the 680 is a PCIe 3.0 card. To get the most out of FSX you need to match all the components not just one ... you've add a very nice Ferrari engine (the 680 4GB) but it's still sitting inside a Honda Civic. I'd recommend stepping up to an i7 series processor and an X79 based motherboard with PCIe 3.0 support and Quad channel RAM to match the performance potential of your 680 4GB. I know you probably don't want to hear this, but just trying to help you understand why you're not seeing a difference.

[SolRayz 392]

I've been thinking of joining the DX10 bandwagon. I already dl all the necessary files and doc's, just havent gotten around to it.

 

I had tried before on my previous rig with a 560ti and was not happy with the results so I reverted back.

 

Might give it another shot with the new rig this weekend.

[B777ER 2,484]

Geez, I got a Intel I7 975 3.33ghz quad core chip with a 680FTW 4GB card and have great performance and visuals. To each there own....

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2

 

 

[jime59 58]

I noticed your fsx.cfg has your GPU listed twice, once at 2560x1440 16 bit and the other at 1920x1080 32 bit.

As far as I know, you're supposed to only have it listed once. Also, I see you have framerate = 0. Not sure why that would be 0.

 

 

jime

[paul123 5]

I noticed your fsx.cfg has your GPU listed twice, once at 2560x1440 16 bit and the other at 1920x1080 32 bit.

As far as I know, you're supposed to only have it listed once. Also, I see you have framerate = 0. Not sure why that would be 0.

 

 

jime

Yes I run 2 monitors Jimenez, running framerates at unlimited has always given me more FPS, don't ask me why ....

[dazz 69]

Yes I run 2 monitors Jimenez, running framerates at unlimited has always given me more FPS, don't ask me why ....

 

Paul, your CPU is certainly not the problem. Like Arjen said already, when it comes to FSX, you get a high end card to improve visuals and still have good performance in bad weather (try 3+ layers of 8/8 overcast clouds at 2xSGSS or 4xSGSS)

 

FSMark11 is deliberately conceived to be CPU bound (flying over dense scenery, maxed out sliders...) you won't see a difference there and the GPU won't make a difference in those scenarios (big airports and such)

[kannwar 47]

 

 

Not sure I understand this, but ok -- just trying to help Paul realize the benefit of his 680 4GB card in FSX. The reason you want to use DX10 is for better visuals, less memory usage, improved performance.

 

The i5 series isn't the best choice of processor regardless of clock speed ... and your motherboard is PCIe 2.0 not PCIe 3.0 ... the 680 is a PCIe 3.0 card. To get the most out of FSX you need to match all the components not just one ... you've add a very nice Ferrari engine (the 680 4GB) but it's still sitting inside a Honda Civic. I'd recommend stepping up to an i7 series processor and an X79 based motherboard with PCIe 3.0 support and Quad channel RAM to match the performance potential of your 680 4GB. I know you probably don't want to hear this, but just trying to help you understand why you're not seeing a difference.

 

I don't think PCI-E 3.0 makes jack all difference in FSX at the moment. At least not from what I've read. Also while the benefits of DX10 you mention are certainly there he should also know of the pitfalls such as missing textures at payware airports (especially at night). Like I've said in other threads, I personally won't touch DX10 until this is fixed.

[dazz 69]

I don't think PCI-E 3.0 makes jack all difference in FSX at the moment. At least not from what I've read. Also while the benefits of DX10 you mention are certainly there he should also know of the pitfalls such as missing textures at payware airports (especially at night). Like I've said in other threads, I personally won't touch DX10 until this is fixed.

 

Agreed.

 

PCIe 3.0, Quad Channel, Hyperthreading, 2 extra cores... all make negligible to no difference whatsoever in FSX.

DX10, well that's a matter of personal preference, but I'm with you. I also can't stand the default AA. Getting a GTX680 just to be stuck with 4xAA or something, even with SGSS... I don't know

[elche 5]

Hey Guys,

 

What about the upcoming GTX780? Read somewhere that it would have a 50% boost in performance over the 680....

 

I'm currently on a GTX580 and was looking at upgrading to the 680, but thinking about holding out for the 780 if it's true.

[Guest]

I don't think PCI-E 3.0 makes jack all difference in FSX at the moment. At least not from what I've read. Also while the benefits of DX10 you mention are certainly there he should also know of the pitfalls such as missing textures at payware airports (especially at night).

 

PCI-e 3.0 should make a difference in moving data from A to B given PCI-e is around 15.75 GB/s vs. PCI-e 2.0 which is 8 GB/s on a 16 lane slot ... but again that depends on RAM bandwidth, SSD performance. (I believe 2014 we'll see PCI-e 4.0 which double PCI-e 3.0).

 

I'm aware of the issues around DX10 but those problems are mostly specific to some 3rd party products now. Personally I'd pressure the 3rd party vendors to get their products updated to work with DX10. Given how close FSX is to it's memory limit, even more of a reason to go with DX10 and get it working and install Steve P's DX10 modifications (file is available in AVSIM library).

 

But this 680 4GB is VERY DX10 FSX friendly, more so than any other card I've used.

 

Now if Paul was talking ATI, then I might understand being reluctant and staying with FX9 ... but to each his/her own, just trying to help.

 

Guess I better post some DX10 screenshots.

[kannwar 47]

 

 

PCI-e 3.0 should make a difference in moving data from A to B given PCI-e is around 15.75 GB/s vs. PCI-e 2.0 which is 8 GB/s on a 16 lane slot ... but again that depends on RAM bandwidth, SSD performance. (I believe 2014 we'll see PCI-e 4.0 which double PCI-e 3.0).

 

I'm aware of the issues around DX10 but those problems are mostly specific to some 3rd party products now. Personally I'd pressure the 3rd party vendors to get their products updated to work with DX10. Given how close FSX is to it's memory limit, even more of a reason to go with DX10 and get it working and install Steve P's DX10 modifications (file is available in AVSIM library).

 

 

I guess it just comes down to whether or not FSX can utilize that extra bandwidth effectively.

 

Aerosoft make most of their sceneries partially compatible with DX10 which means they have a DX10 mode that you can enable - only problem is it only works at day time. So as soon as FS loads the night textures in you are left with an ugly mess of missing aprons, building textures and lord knows what else. Terrible. Not sure if it's a DX10 limitation or just Aerosoft beinglazy. If it's the latter someone needs to kick them up the a**.

[paul123 5]

Paul, your CPU is certainly not the problem. Like Arjen said already, when it comes to FSX, you get a high end card to improve visuals and still have good performance in bad weather (try 3+ layers of 8/8 overcast clouds at 2xSGSS or 4xSGSS)

 

FSMark11 is deliberately conceived to be CPU bound (flying over dense scenery, maxed out sliders...) you won't see a difference there and the GPU won't make a difference in those scenarios (big airports and such)

 

Thanks Dazz, that explains a lot for me.