Hi Guys,

 

I'm a bit disappointed because I though I had a solution to my frame per second limitation with max graphical details. Actually I run an i7 3770K overclocked at 4.4GHz on a Win7 64b.

The X-plane I run is a 10.20rc2 version.

Actually my central CPU was running under 50% of load and around 2GB of central RAM among the 8 installed.

I had a GF 560GTX TI graphical card that seemed to be a bottleneck with its 1GB of DDR3 VRAM because when running GPU-Z the GPU load wasn't at the maximum but the memory was saturated -> low fps on big sceneries. I also run latest NVidia driver 314.07.

 

So I installed instead a GF 660GTX TI with 3GB of VRAM and I can't really see the difference :( GPU-Z confirms that I'm on PCI-e 3.0 x16.

 

Now, with all this stuff nothing seem to be saturated (neither the CPU with its memory nor the GPU with its VRAM) and, even that, I have low fps like on this screenshot at Orly with win7 gadgets showing the figures :(

I have these low fps when I aim on the direction of Paris with its high number of buildings. when I aim to the runway the number increases to 50/60 fps.

 

What do you think I have missed to make both memories and CPU/GPU resources used as it should and then increase my fps in general ?

 

Thanks for any feedback :lol:

i am in the same situation as you i5 3570K 4.5 gtx 660, set road to siberian and desactivate HDR you'll go up to around 24-25 fps maybe ...

set HDR to FXAA and see what happens!

Weird, check how many ai you have, world distance, number of objects, cars, clouds, anti alias settings and hdr. Those are killers if they're not properly configured. I have a similar system except for the cpu and I'm enjoying XP10 by the way I don't use hdr.

Good luck,

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Drop everything to minimum then turn up one thing at a time until you find your performance killers. It seems to be different for everybody. In my case world shadows and water reflections are the heavy hitters.

my kids PC with an AMD 6870 1gb runs XP10 very smooth and fast: Dell XPS 8300, 3.4ghz, 8gb ram, ATI 6870 1gb, 500gb HD and with FXAA HDR, High Textures, High View Distance, Traffic Siberia, Trees Max, Objects Max, Airports Max, Clouds 100% at 1920x1080 I get over 30fps with payware aircraft.

my frame per second limitation with max graphical details

Hello Souf, this is a common mistake to start with everything maxed out. No today's computer can run X-Plane 10 with every setting at max. I have a GTX680 and I can't, especially in Paris.

This is normal that not all your CPU cores are used. It could be the case if you set ai planes to 20, and I'm not even sure that all would be used.

Maybe you could post a screenshot of your graphic settings.

What others said is true: start with moderate settings, HDR off, and go up until you hit some bottlenecks, and tune for your taste. (somtimes I prefer max shadows, sometimes HDR, but never both together, for example).

Drop everything to minimum then turn up one thing at a time until you find your performance killers. It seems to be different for everybody. In my case world shadows and water reflections are the heavy hitters.

 

Not just different for everyone, I've seen drastic FPS differences even on my own computer -- same (high) settings, plane, location, time of day in sim, weather, GPU and CPU overclock, etc... one time I'll get 30-50 fps, the next time I launch XP I'll get 15-25 fps, next time it'll be different again. It's not other programs taking up CPU and memory, XP is the only thing I run on that computer.

Hi,

 

Actually i'm surprised that all available resources (especially RAM and VRAM) aren't completely used.

 

I'll effectively try to upgrade graphical parameters little by little til I find a good concession.

Strange this behavior.

 

Thanks for all :lol:

Actually i'm surprised that all available resources (especially RAM and VRAM) aren't completely used.

I've never heard that a software could adapt it's RAM usage to the total available.

The only thing a bit strange in your case is that the GPU usage is 39%. However I don't know what this parameter exactly is. A GPU has lots of cores and that must be much more complicated to keep track of the real use. Maybe you could compare with another heavy game or benchmark.

Maybe you could compare with another heavy game or benchmark.

 

Effectively I'll try to do some benchmarking to see.

 

Thanks :lol:

It might be the facades or objects being drawn is taxing the GPU...sounds like a vertex or mesh limitation reached on the GPU side...may not show fully utilized, but it is as the benchmarks don't usually measure the vertex or pixel buffers and their capacities current versus total. If a buffer is full, the GPU has to wait for the buffer to empty and complete before it can move on to the next item, causing slowdowns.

Not just different for everyone, I've seen drastic FPS differences even on my own computer -- same (high) settings, plane, location, time of day in sim, weather, GPU and CPU overclock, etc... one time I'll get 30-50 fps, the next time I launch XP I'll get 15-25 fps, next time it'll be different again. It's not other programs taking up CPU and memory, XP is the only thing I run on that computer.

 

Cloud cover can make a big difference. You might have buttery smooth framerates on a clear day, but add some overcast clouds and framerates can plummet. So maybe framerates should be tuned with an overcast sky so you'll always be assured acceptable performance regardless of the weather.

 

The developers have also said that cars are generated over time, so you might start out with great framerates when few cars around but find performance decreasing as you fly because more and more cars are being added to the world, so try and keep cars at a modest level.

 

Just a couple more tips to keep in mind.

The problem is with the software itself. I spoke with Austin last year at Airventure and he stated that XP10 does not utilize SLI. I have a Core i7 2600k w/ GTX 690 (SLI on a single Card) and I am one setting from max and get an average of about 40-50 fps.

 

I find it a little acenine that that many sims do not utilize SLI! I just seems like lazy programming to me...

 

 

I can run other non sim titles at 100 fps+ :rolleyes:

I find it a little acenine that that many sims do not utilize SLI! I just seems like lazy programming to me...

 

Not really. It simply wouldn't help the fps in any way. X-Plane 10 primarily uses one resource: Memory bandwidth. THat the resource that really limits X-Plane 10, but not the computing power of the CPU or the GPU. So if it is far from using the computing power of one GPU, what would be the sense to use the computing power of another GPU? It wouldn't be used anyway. Improvements of one component only helps if this resource was a real bottleneck (Amdahl's Law). Add a GPU that runs 15 times faster and a CPU that runs 20 times faster, it wouldn't help if it doesn't improve the memory bandwidth.

A very big VRAM of 4GB and 16 GB RAM can help but most of the other components won't help. IN fact SLI would probably result in lower fps, than the single GPU case.