Archived

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

Beardyman

Money waste

Recommended Posts

This is a kind of precaution post to those who are going to upgrade computers for FSX.

 

Today i have got my brand new Gigabyte GTX760OC 2Gb graphic board.

760 is replacement for my old 460.

 

And ... got nothing extra, maybe 1fps, maybe not.

With my old GTX460 at OMDB ( FLY TAMPA ) with PMDGT7 i had around 20fps with mouse pointer, around 26-28 without mouse pointer.

With new GTX760 i have exactly same values !!, nothing gained.

No extra fps, texture loading time same - no any noticeable change.

It is hard to believe, but it's true.

 

So why to buy expensive graphic, no sense.

I think top graphic for FSX is GTX650, buying anything better is pure waste of money - as long as we are talking about computer which is built exclusively for FSX.

My computer was built only for FSX, so with done upgrade to 760 i got nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Been there, done that.

Big payware airports + complex A/C = CPU limited.

 

You could try upping your antialiasing to justify the upgrade somehow. 2xSGSS may be a big hit in clouds  for a 760 though, try it and see how you like it.

 

If you want more performance, get a good cooler & overclock that I7 to some 4 - 4.2GHz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprising, graphic card doesn't really matter much with FSX. I have a high end graphics card only because I like to play other games too, overclocking my i7-2600k to 4.4ghz is what made the difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprising, graphic card doesn't really matter much with FSX. I have a high end graphics card only because I like to play other games too, overclocking my i7-2600k to 4.4ghz is what made the difference. 

It matters a great deal in the right circumstances! Yes, in clear skies at a major airport you may not see much of a difference between an expensive 780 and an older 460. But in heavy cloud the 780 will give you a big improvement.

 

Have a read of his GPU comparison and look at the difference for FSX Test Clouds AA results. Although he has reviewed the Titan the 780 is very close for far less money.

 

http://#####.wordpress.com/fsxp3d-gpu-comparison-aka-gtx-titan-for-fsx-test/

 

FScamp, I see you have an ATI card. Those unfortunately do not produce the best results in FSX. nVidia is a much better chipset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I felt the same when going from a 460 to a 580. I did the mildest OC to my CPU (8% I think) and got much more noticeable results from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gygabite and ATI are not the best bedfellows. I have a Gforce 960 video card that would be the bare minimum for FSX.

Also have you optimised your MB? go through your Bios and make sure there are no conflicts. The most common is not disabling the on board sound and video when cards are attached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really hard to believe, it's the same card, same chipset, with very mild higher clock.  Just a later series.     Good old marketing companies are making a fortune.

 

the only real upgrade since the 400 series is the 780 and the Titan which use the newer 110 cuda cores.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a kind of precaution post to those who are going to upgrade computers for FSX.

 

Today i have got my brand new Gigabyte GTX760OC 2Gb graphic board.

760 is replacement for my old 460.

 

And ... got nothing extra, maybe 1fps, maybe not.

With my old GTX460 at OMDB ( FLY TAMPA ) with PMDGT7 i had around 20fps with mouse pointer, around 26-28 without mouse pointer.

With new GTX760 i have exactly same values !!, nothing gained.

No extra fps, texture loading time same - no any noticeable change.

It is hard to believe, but it's true.

 

So why to buy expensive graphic, no sense.

I think top graphic for FSX is GTX650, buying anything better is pure waste of money - as long as we are talking about computer which is built exclusively for FSX.

My computer was built only for FSX, so with done upgrade to 760 i got nothing.

I also have a GTX460 and have absolutely no problems with it what so ever, even under heavy clouds. If it's not broken don"t fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

480 is having Fermi architecture, 760 is equipped with Kepler core which is quite different.

Memory clock, gpu clock and memory bandwith are much different...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want higher fps disable car tragfic or OC you CPU.

 

If ypu want smooth flight lock fps at 30.

 

If you want better IQ and higher resolutions you need a better video card and or monitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also matters if you blow up to a larger screen / resolution

Size is immaterial, it's the resolution that's important. 1920x1080 on a 40" will give the same performance as on a 24". But if you want a screen larger than 30" a TV is a better option as a 30" monitor generally has a 2560x1600 and will adversely affect fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesh, I meant more on resolution.

I have a 30" Monitor at 2560x1600 running on an ati 6990.

 

Funnily enough if I drop the resolution to 1920x1200 there is very little if any noticeable frame rate improvement.

 

So would summise the CPU is doing it's job (Handling what is around us, as we know FSX is CPU hungry),

and the GPU is doing it's job (Handling what it see's & texturing it, not how much is around it).

 

I assume dropping bellow there may see some slight improvement in frame rates, but kind of defeats of choosing a 30" screen really,

Great for VFR approaches, no need to play with Lod, still leave it at 4.5 and can line up from a good distance with lights & lay (direction) of the runway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

FScamp, I see you have an ATI card. Those unfortunately do not produce the best results in FSX. nVidia is a much better chipset.

 

False. Was true a few years ago. Not so much in the current generation. 7970 = GTX680, 7950 = GTX660ti

 

That said, ATI has no anwer to the GTX780 and Titan yet.

 

Also, ATI 4xSSAA is not quite as sharp as 8xS with 2xSGSS Transparancy enabled. It's more like 4xS with 2xSGSS.

 

Charles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sara,

 

There's one way of checking how much resolution affects the performance. Try resizing a windowed FSX down to a quarter of the screen and set fps to unlimited. The smaller you make it the more the fps may increase. You should get 120ps with it at 2cm x 2cm but it's a bit tricky to land. :biggrin:

 

Charles,

 

Back in 2008 I tried a Radeon 3970 and whilst the image quality was excellent it couldn't cope very well with clouds. I swapped it for a nVidia 8800GTX and the performance increase was dramatic albeit with lower image quality. I wouldn't buy another ATI card for FS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

System balance is the key. The GTX 460 running with an older generation I7 at 3 ghz is an appropriate combo. Your bottleneck here is the CPU.  Pairing the GTX 460 with a 2600K running at 4.7 ghz will bring that 460 to its knees. There is a big misconception about the importance of the GPU and I've seen countless posts of people dropping a powerful later generation GPU into their rigs and not seeing the performance (FPS) increase they want. I once built an AMD based rig and then placed 2 ATI cards in a crossfire (SLI) configuration thinking I had it made and got a nasty surprise. Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pairing the GTX 460 with a 2600K running at 4.7 ghz will bring that 460 to its knees

 

Why would that be? The GTX460 will eventually become the bottleneck if you keep increasing the CPU power for a given CPU limited scenario, of course, but if it was good for say 30 FPS, adding CPU power will not lower your FPS.

 

The balance is a lot more about IQ settings. I mean at 8xS + no transparency AA (or standard SS) and 1080p, a GTX can handle clouds at 30+ FPS... Without clouds probably 100+ FPS, so you can wait another 20 years for a CPU that will not bottleneck a 460 at those settings

 

I bet Artur would still be CPU limited in his OMDB ( FLY TAMPA ) + PMDGT7 scenario in good weather, even if he had a 5GHz I7 4770K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would that be? The GTX460 will eventually become the bottleneck if you keep increasing the CPU power for a given CPU limited scenario, of course, but if it was good for say 30 FPS, adding CPU power will not lower your FPS.

 

The balance is a lot more about IQ settings. I mean at 8xS + no transparency AA (or standard SS) and 1080p, a GTX can handle clouds at 30+ FPS... Without clouds probably 100+ FPS, so you can wait another 20 years for a CPU that will not bottleneck a 460 at those settings

Well, perhaps I wasn't using the right "wordage". I would never suggest that increasing CPU clock speed would hamper FSX regardless of the GPU employed. All I was suggesting was that there comes a point (especially if using the bufferpools tweak), the GPU will become the bottleneck if not able to handle the rendering tasks being thrown at it by a fast CPU. Kindest regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had years of frustration with FSX and I finally went crazy and got myself a new rig with a Geforce 780. I finally can now run everything as smooth as silk and I am getting 300 Fps. I sympathize with your situation because I have been there.The worst part about it is the expectations. i use to read there is only one way around all this and that is to get the best.

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, perhaps I wasn't using the right "wordage". I would never suggest that increasing CPU clock speed would hamper FSX regardless of the GPU employed. All I was suggesting was that there comes a point (when using the right config file tweaks), the GPU will become the bottleneck if not able to handle the rendering tasks being thrown at it by a fast CPU. Kindest regards

 

Ok Adam, understood.

The thing is that while a CPU bottleneck (and I mean the latest and greatest overclocked I7) in FSX can easily mean frame rates in the mid teens or low 20's, a GTX460 has no problem running 30 plus FPS at 8xS in any circumstances, clouds or not.

 

That means you can keep adding CPU power for a while even with a lowly 460 if you're happy with the resolution and shimmer control it provides at 8xS.

 

I agree there must be some balance between CPU & GPU, of course I do, but people tend to overstate CPU upgrades far too much. For example, take this system that was cutting edge  two year ago: 2600K + GTX480

 

Today a 4770K + GTX770 (let alone a 780 ot Titan) is a 15% more CPU power vs a 100% in the GPU  if you know what I mean. So much for keeping the balance right? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Adam, understood.

The thing is that while a CPU bottleneck (and I mean the latest and greatest overclocked I7) in FSX can easily mean frame rates in the mid teens or low 20's, a GTX460 has no problem running 30 plus FPS at 8xS in any circumstances, clouds or not.

 

That means you can keep adding CPU power for a while even with a lowly 460 if you're happy with the resolution and shimmer control it provides at 8xS.

 

I agree there must be some balance between CPU & GPU, of course I do, but people tend to overstate CPU upgrades far too much. For example, take this system that was cutting edge  two year ago: 2600K + GTX480

 

Today a 4770K + GTX770 (let alone a 780 ot Titan) is a 15% more CPU power vs a 100% in the GPU  if you know what I mean. So much for keeping the balance right? :lol:

I would certainly agree that there is a huge mismatch between CPU and GPU evolution. With that said, using a program like REX, PMDG NGX, and ORBX in a demanding scenario, especially in a multi monitor setup, with your IQ settings cranked will hammer almost any GPU. My EVGA 670FTW is not happy in this scenario as evidenced by flashing, artifacts, shimmering, etc. Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you still running at a CPU speed of 3.07 GHz?  If so, that is part of the problem.  That CPU speed will bottleneck the hell out of that GPU.  Additionally, GPU in FSX will only make a bigger difference when running high definition cloud textures, very cloudy environments, higher resolution textures, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


It matters a great deal in the right circumstances

 

Yup.

 

I have 3 X 24" monitors + 4th touchscreen monitor/

 

It matters to me... AA and Clouds and what not, these massgive video card does its thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I have had years of frustration with FSX and I finally went crazy and got myself a new rig with a Geforce 780. I finally can now run everything as smooth as silk and I am getting 300 Fps.

I'll have a similar PC in a couple of weeks but without wishing to rain on your parade you won't get anything like that on approach into UK2000's Heathrow with low cloud and an Ai package running.

 

In fact if I get 20fps I'll be delighted. The measure of a system is how well it copes in the most demanding situations. As an IFR pilot flying Concorde on occasions I'm hoping my i4770K @ 4.4GHz with a GTX780 will cope with most situations but approaching EGLL or KJFK will push it to its limits.


 

 


I have 3 X 24" monitors + 4th touchscreen monitor/ It matters to me...

That's where the extra muscle comes into play. With a lesser card it would really struggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites