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.

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.

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

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

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

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:

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

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

You should be pretty okay with that Ray,

 

I run a i7 990X at 4.6,

and get pretty much 20fps (locked) and smooth for most of UK, using UK2000 airports,

Playsims  photoscenery, Earth simulations Treescapes, but yes it does drop to around 10fps around London, that's with London City, Stansted, Gatwick and Heathrow going, specially near Heathrow when it drops to 8 near landing,

but smoothness is everything,

so perfectly landable for instrument or VFR aporach.

 

but yes the ATI's do still dislike clouds, in severe thunderstorms, it will do the same as London does,

The good thing is with London and Thunderstorm it is still 8fps at Heathrow as 1 slowdown is GPU, and 1 is CPU lol.

But still smooth.

 

 

but yes the ATI's do still dislike clouds

 

Do you have Bojote's shader 3.0 mod installed Sara?

Knowing FSX I'm sure you'll prove to be right! Until then I can still dream on!

 

 

Paul

I've allway's used DX10,

I use mogwaisoft Shade,

that's about it

 

 

You should be pretty okay with that Ray,

God, I hope so. It's costing a flippin' fortune! :Shocked:

 

I run a i7 990X at 4.6,

and get pretty much 20fps (locked) and smooth for most of UK, using UK2000 airports,

Playsims photoscenery, Earth simulations Treescapes, but yes it does drop to around 10fps around London, that's with London City, Stansted, Gatwick and Heathrow going, specially near Heathrow when it drops to 8 near landing,

but smoothness is everything,

so perfectly landable for instrument or VFR aporach.

You can make fine adjustments on approach with 8fps. :shok:  I would really struggle to cope with performance that low irrespective of how smooth it is. Do you have a lot of Ai active or is it down to the ATI card?