Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sharmo

777 beta pc specs

Recommended Posts

What kind of frames have the beta testers been getting with there different computer specs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In comparison to the PMDG 737 NGX, frame rates have improved "across the board."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of frames have the beta testers been getting with there different computer specs.

 

I always scratch my head when people ask this because the millions of different combinations of hardware out there (not to mention tweaks to the .cfg) you can never really pin it down.  Heck, given three different simmers with the same computer, with the same exact add-ons, I'll bet you'll see three different results based on how they treat their computer, manage it, and so on.

 

Rant aside (it's me after all):

I use an Asus G74SX (the specs are in my profile) and I'm getting about the same frames or better in the 777X as I do in the NGX.  Even with my slightly more modest setup, I'm getting 30+.

 

As usual:

Take that with giant grains of salt because your mileage may very.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run a 2 year old 2600K @ 4.8gHz on an Asus P8Z68 Deluxe MB, with 8 gigs of G.Skill RAM and a Crucial M4 512. GPU is an EVGA GTX570. Bought it the day the NGX was released.

 

Absolutely NO REASON to upgrade from that for the 777. The only thing that might get traded is the GPU (for a GTX770), but as i fly on a 60" Sony LCD that may be unnecessary.......That's MY OPINION- remember what they say about opinions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use an Asus G74SX (the specs are in my profile) and I'm getting about the same frames or better in the 777X as I do in the NGX. Even with my slightly more modest setup, I'm getting 30+.

 

 

Hey that's my machine as well Kyle.  Glad to hear it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I have one of the weakest machines out of everyone testing. Asus laptop: (3.1 GHz i7/8GB Ram/Nvidia 630MGT 2GB) runs around 20FPS average. Bit better than NGX for me! You've seen the quality I run in via my screenshots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run a 2 year old 2600K @ 4.8gHz on an Asus P8Z68 Deluxe MB, with 8 gigs of G.Skill RAM and a Crucial M4 512. GPU is an EVGA GTX570. Bought it the day the NGX was released.

 

Absolutely NO REASON to upgrade from that for the 777. The only thing that might get traded is the GPU (for a GTX770), but as i fly on a 60" Sony LCD that may be unnecessary.......That's MY OPINION- remember what they say about opinions!

 

man did you steal my pc? haha typical my computer! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, thanks for your reports. But i dont think FPS is the major concern for most new machines. The real problem is VAS USage since this is a hard limit. Can you tell us something about the VAS of the 777X, how much is it - more than the NGX (i think the nGX tok about 700mb). DId you experience any OOMs flying into heavy airports using payware sceneries? I know it will always be a compromise......

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, thanks for your reports. But i dont think FPS is the major concern for most new machines. The real problem is VAS USage since this is a hard limit. Can you tell us something about the VAS of the 777X, how much is it - more than the NGX (i think the nGX tok about 700mb). DId you experience any OOMs flying into heavy airports using payware sceneries? I know it will always be a compromise......

 

Thanks

 

The 777X has less polygons due to it's lighter design [this is entirely realistic however.] 

 

I think there would be less VAS usage due to this. Optimization techniques that have saved FPS should also save VAS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 777X has less polygons due to it's lighter design [this is entirely realistic however.] 

 

I think there would be less VAS usage due to this. Optimization techniques that have saved FPS should also save VAS.

 

 

Thanks. I just opened a new thread because i think this is a really important topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if the heads up display not in this bird helped with the FPS - great to hear

 

The HUD actually had almost zero impact on the NGX. It's other things at play here.

The 777X has less polygons due to it's lighter design [this is entirely realistic however.] 

 

I think there would be less VAS usage due to this. Optimization techniques that have saved FPS should also save VAS.

 

Careful there - VAS isn't just about polygons and textures. While the VC is less "busy" and whatnot than the NGX, the 777 systems are a lot more complicated, particularly the ECL and EICAS systems. There's a lot more variables that are being stored in memory and referenced etc and that increases VAS. I tested this extensively and found that it's slightly above the NGX, but not ridiculously so. The NGX will show for instance 750MB of use, and the 777 will show 800MB - it's not a big deal and it's going to fluctate around that 750-850 range most likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HUD actually had almost zero impact on the NGX. It's other things at play here.

 

Careful there - VAS isn't just about polygons and textures. While the VC is less "busy" and whatnot than the NGX, the 777 systems are a lot more complicated, particularly the ECL and EICAS systems. There's a lot more variables that are being stored in memory and referenced etc and that increases VAS. I tested this extensively and found that it's slightly above the NGX, but not ridiculously so. The NGX will show for instance 750MB of use, and the 777 will show 800MB - it's not a big deal and it's going to fluctate around that 750-850 range most likely.

 

Thanks Ryan, i really appreciate your insight and having this rising problem in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HUD actually had almost zero impact on the NGX. It's other things at play here.

 

Careful there - VAS isn't just about polygons and textures. While the VC is less "busy" and whatnot than the NGX, the 777 systems are a lot more complicated, particularly the ECL and EICAS systems. There's a lot more variables that are being stored in memory and referenced etc and that increases VAS. I tested this extensively and found that it's slightly above the NGX, but not ridiculously so. The NGX will show for instance 750MB of use, and the 777 will show 800MB - it's not a big deal and it's going to fluctate around that 750-850 range most likely.

 

Thanks for correcting me. What I posted was pretty much just an educated guess on why, it's good to hear it won't be that big of an increase, I should still be able to fly the 777X then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...