Sign in to follow this  
DJJose

DX10 AA Performance & A GTX780

Recommended Posts

Gentlemen,

 

As a recent convert to Dx10, I was doing some AA tests using the fixer settings and Nvidia Inspector's SGSS settings.

 

I found that my gtx480 has a hard time dealing with SGSS and heavy clouds when using the dx10 preview. Without clouds, it's beautiful!

 

This has always been a know issue, but can the new video card (gtx780) perform better with 8x & 8SGSS. This is the sweet spot for shimmer free simulation.

 

I found that 32x & 2SGSS works well but performance still dips into the 20s and the sim becomes choppy approaching certain airports. This is with a BP=40000 and water setting of h1X. Water=5. I've tried with BP=0 but did not see a performance increase and it makes me wonder if BP=0 has an effect at all on FSX's performance.

 

My tests were all conducted at night with 3d lighting on and lots of clouds. When I compare IQ and performance to dx9 in the same scenerios, Dx9 wins easily.

 

If anyone has had success with a new card, please post your results.

 

Thanks.

 

Jose

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I gave up on dx10 because of this. Couldn't get smooth enough performance with clouds in the area with 8xsgss. Wherever I pan the camera towards any clouds, stutters ensue. The only thing that eliminates it is reducing to 2xsgss, which for me is a no go, too shimmery.

 

 

BTW Paul, sorry but the fix that you provided I thought fixed the stutters turned out unsuccessful. I still commend you for the consideration and help!

 

To answer your question Jose, no, the GTX780 still isn't enough. Check my pc specs.

Share this post


Link to post

I currently have a GTX570 HD and have my frame rate locked at 31 using DX10 with the "Fixer."  I get that consistently with pretty high settings except in places like Chicago or New York where it can drop to the low 20s.  I know that FSX is more CPU-based that GPU-based but wonder if I would see any real improvement if I went to a GTX780?

Share this post


Link to post

Well - I went from the 580 to the 780 five or six weeks ago, and haven't looked back. It sure did make a difference, and sorry, David 4.4-gig is not the same as 5.0-gig - newer architecture or otherwise. FSX was built with "single thread in mind, and only slightly expanded multi-threading in 2007 with SP2.

 

Here's one quick set of pics.. Anacortes is a sod for frame-hogging. This is 8x SGSS.

Another set here.

 

What the 780 seems to do, is allow a 'heavy' flight down even as low as 16 - 18 frames, without loss of smoothness. At the moment I'm locking at 21 frames, with Inspector set to "1/3 Refresh Rate" and "Standard" for Vsync control, and it just works fine. It is perfectly smooth.

Those pics are here.

Share this post


Link to post

I gave up on dx10 because of this. Couldn't get smooth enough performance with clouds in the area with 8xsgss. Wherever I pan the camera towards any clouds, stutters ensue. The only thing that eliminates it is reducing to 2xsgss, which for me is a no go, too shimmery.

 

 

BTW Paul, sorry but the fix that you provided I thought fixed the stutters turned out unsuccessful. I still commend you for the consideration and help!

 

To answer your question Jose, no, the GTX780 still isn't enough. Check my pc specs.

Thanks for sharing. I guess I'll have to compromise some quality for better fps. It's not a deal breaker for me. Have you tried BP=40000 with water set to low or medium? The water setting has a dramatic impact on smoothness. I'm not sure if BP=0 works in dx10 preview.

Well - I went from the 580 to the 780 five or six weeks ago, and haven't looked back. It sure did make a difference, and sorry, David 4.4-gig is not the same as 5.0-gig - newer architecture or otherwise. FSX was built with "single thread in mind, and only slightly expanded multi-threading in 2007 with SP2.

 

Here's one quick set of pics.. Anacortes is a sod for frame-hogging. This is 8x SGSS.

Another set here.

 

What the 780 seems to do, is allow a 'heavy' flight down even as low as 16 - 18 frames, without loss of smoothness. At the moment I'm locking at 21 frames, with Inspector set to "1/3 Refresh Rate" and "Standard" for Vsync control, and it just works fine. It is perfectly smooth.

Those pics are here.

Paul,

 

How does your sim look and perform with other AA setting like 32x & 4SGSS? It looks great on my system but I do loose fps in clouds.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Jose: Almost one year ago - I did around six hundred circuits in downtown Vancouver+ (Jon Patch and Holger Sandemann) working to get a solid 30 frames in DX10, and BP was absolutely central to getting and holding that. I went from BP=0 in DX9 to BP=1, buffersize of 10meg, and an rt of 512 k. I screenshot and hundreds of pics, many of them at about 2 - 3 secs apart, to show no dipping in those settings, and published them on the DX10 Discussions forum here. These are not those shots, but for all intents and purposes, they will do, being pretty much identical. When I started the testing, it dipped as low as 14 - 17, basically all over the place, but improved, with the fluctuations lessening as TBM, FFTF, and other settings were slowly moved up or played with. It took a long time, but the ability to drive the 172 south, across the river and up Cambie street at 100kts and at ground level, 25 set for road traffic with dead solid 29.9fps in the top-left corner was euphoric.

Have you tried BP=40000 with water set to low or medium? You mean a buffer size of 5KB??
The default buffer is 8MB - I found 10 MB to be a slightly better size, with an RT of .5MB.

other AA setting like 32x & 4SGSS? No, no.. I don't bother with sizes that I know my machine cannot handle or I can't see. 4x SGSS is more than enough to stop all the shimmering I need, so 8x CSAA set in the Fixer is where she sits right now, Jose. KSEA and other areas and airports can make mincemeat of high or extreme cfg settings: much better to be conservative with all settings, including processes stopped, and only the airports, sceneries and "trusted" loaded that I need for my regular flying. i.e no Africa, no East Asia, no EU-Popham, no Couatl or Addon Manager, etc., I can't get too hung up on unrealistic settings and expectations, for what is, after all at least a six-year old game, with six year-old code! Given some modest and dilligent setup work, DX10 can look and perform very much better than DX9 does, and provided one can get around "this one issue that keeps me back" then one can get tremendous satisfaction from the many pleasurable benefits that the "New "Sim" gives!

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you my friend. I will use conservative settings until I upgrade my card.

 

JOSE

Share this post


Link to post

Well - I went from the 580 to the 780 five or six weeks ago, and haven't looked back. It sure did make a difference, and sorry, David 4.4-gig is not the same as 5.0-gig - newer architecture or otherwise. FSX was built with "single thread in mind, and only slightly expanded multi-threading in 2007 with SP2.

 

Here's one quick set of pics.. Anacortes is a sod for frame-hogging. This is 8x SGSS.

Another set here.

 

What the 780 seems to do, is allow a 'heavy' flight down even as low as 16 - 18 frames, without loss of smoothness. At the moment I'm locking at 21 frames, with Inspector set to "1/3 Refresh Rate" and "Standard" for Vsync control, and it just works fine. It is perfectly smooth.

Those pics are here.

 

Very nice pictures.  Thanks for sharing!  Locked at 21 huh?  I'm still waiting for the 780 to drop in price just a little.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

I'm still waiting for the 780 to drop in price just a little.

 

:LMAO:

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you my friend. I will use conservative settings until I upgrade my card.

 

JOSE

 

Here Jose,

 

This is a vid I made some time ago (way before Steve's fixes), with a GTX480, beside the popping buildings (load at 9.5) this is as smooth as it can be with a lots of clouds with visibility at unlimited...no problems with FPS, bloom enable and more.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvXzJ8ZYGqw

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


Have you tried BP=40000 with water set to low or medium? You mean a buffer size of 5KB??
The default buffer is 8MB - I found 10 MB to be a slightly better size, with an RT of .5MB.

 

Are you sure about this default value? I remember FSX RTM having a default of 4MB, but I recall reading something from Phil Taylor stating it was cut to 1mb after SP2?

Share this post


Link to post

Nooooo: Can't cut it back, Tom!!!  RTM was 1MB and was moved to 4MB with SP1, then 8 with SP2. Absolutely sure, Tom.

 

Quote from Raf:-

 

 

 

In RTM, the default setting was 1MB (1000000).  The lower this number, the more pools the allocator will have to rummage through to find space for buffers and the more stutters you may have.  In Sp1, we raised the default to 4MB (4000000) and optimized the underlying algorithm for finding free buffers

So be careful here, making this smaller can hurt you, since searching for space takes time and can cause stutters, and making the number too large can waste space. 4-10m is probably the range to be thinking about using unless you have a very high memory graphics card (  >512 ).

 

With Sp2, the default size was moved to 8MB. The limiting factor is GPU memory allocation - the larger each buffer is - the more memory that is used.

 

I have to root around a bit, but I'll find it: that figure has been quoted by Phil and other ACES members in a number of places - and also by folks like NickN. and Bojote. 

Share this post


Link to post

Here Jose,

 

This is a vid I made some time ago (way before Steve's fixes), with a GTX480, beside the popping buildings (load at 9.5) this is as smooth as it can be with a lots of clouds with visibility at unlimited...no problems with FPS, bloom enable and more.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvXzJ8ZYGqw

Thanks.

 

I'm using a very different location than you are to test the effects on cloud. At dusk with 3d lighting enabled. I also have more clouds and I'm actually panning in the vc.

 

Overall the sim is smooth, but when I pan inside the VC is when it feels sluggish.

Share this post


Link to post

Nooooo: Can't cut it back, Tom!!!  RTM was 1MB and was moved to 4MB with SP1, then 8 with SP2. Absolutely sure, Tom.

 

Quote from Raf:-

 

 

 

 

With Sp2, the default size was moved to 8MB. The limiting factor is GPU memory allocation - the larger each buffer is - the more memory that is used.

 

I have to root around a bit, but I'll find it: that figure has been quoted by Phil and other ACES members in a number of places - and also by folks like NickN. and Bojote. 

Your right I had it backwards!!!

Share this post


Link to post

's ok! I've been backwards half me life! My first model aircraft was the old Walrus, and that had an engine that was stuck on backwards - so we're in good company! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


t sure did make a difference, and sorry, David 4.4-gig is not the same as 5.0-gig - newer architecture or otherwise.

 

This isn't true at all.

 

Its been shown and proven that architecture makes a huge difference. Even in single thread, Haswell at 4.4 ghz is equivalent to Sandy Bridge at 5+ ghz.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry Glenn, we have to disagree. I've built and overclocked a number of Haswell pc's most with better boards and memory, and have found none that perform any better than my clunky old 5.2 gig (now) 2600K. 

 

 

 

It's been shown and proven

  

 

Show me. All I ever read are Tom's Hardware (or equiv) benchmarks - Halo, Bioshock, TombRaider, gamer benchmarks up the Ying-Yang, but not FSX benchmarks. I've also read of no-one, on any FS website where a Haswell will do any better than my old thing, with, say 25 on all traffic, (with 2 for airport traffic), full AG and IQ, 4096, 4.500, 8xSGSS , Bloom,  heavy REX or ASN/AS2012 or FSGRW, 3840 x 1024 x 32, the Terrain section all at max - these are my normal, daily VFR settings.

 

I may well see a more consistent framerate using a Haswell with a higher clock - say 4.6 or 4.7 - exceeding the continuous average framerate and smoothness which my old 2600k does - but all will sit around 30... 28 at some spots, bouncing around 27 to 32. Only on an unlimited frame rate will a higher number be seen, and that's always offset by a significant number of hesitations or stumbles.

 

Lastly, I also see the same number of performance-issue "Please help me"  requests, no matter what the proc. It's still all dependent upon how the whole system is set up - the hardware choices and the OS config. I'm sure Nick Neeham gets the same questions, again and again and again, whether it's C2D with an 8800 and 2 gig of ram, or the very latest all-singing, all dancing Haswell 5960X. I'm equally sure that Michael Greenblatt (now dec'd) of FS-GS fame thought the same, too.

The latest procs are borrowing their architecture from the server architectures nowadays, being forced to go wider because of the physical limitations of heat and wire size and using smp. There will come a day where games will be created to run on machines containing 8 Xeons, each containg 15 cores running at 2.8 gig.... but FSX will not run any better until it's transposed fully in to 64-bit, and using DX11 or 12. Then it will yield better performance than anything which we have today.

 

This disagreement is like comparing two small peanuts - pointless, when the real change actually comes with a 3" - 7cm Brazil nut.

 

All the Best, Glenn,

 

pj

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, Im using the fixer with 4x AA and 4SGSS in nvidia inspector. The latter is necessary to remove jaggies, of course. In addition I'm using the tweaks BP=0 and AM=14. My GTX760 and 4,4 ghz i7 4770K can hold super stable FPS at any add-on airport with clear weather. However, it drops in really cloudy conditions. I have water effects on high because mid looks like a nintendo 64 game. 

 

Any tips for me? It seems like I need affinity mask to remove stutters, actually, but maybe I have the wrong value. 

Share this post


Link to post

I've been trying to get DX10 to look and perform better than DX9 for months. I get much more shimmering in DX10 than DX9 which can only be removed with higher SGSS settings. To get the same image quality in DX10 as DX9 I have to raise my SGSS so much higher that it drags the performance of DX10 below that of DX9. I've tried all the setups in the various guides presented on these forums. I have a 3770k at 4.5 Ghz and a GTX780. My monitors are 3 x 1280 x 1024 in Nividia Surround. I thought at one point that the low resolution monitors were the problem. I tried a single 1920 x 1080 and then a single 1600 x 1200 but the shimmering did not improve.

 

I have my DX9 setup per NickN's guide and it is very smooth and crisp on my machine. The only significant benefit I see from DX10 is the cockpit shadows. So I've resorted to using DX9 in bad weather and DX10 in sunny weather if I want cockpit shadows. There aren't any cockpit shadows to look at anyway when the weather is overcast. If someone has found a solution to eliminate the DX10 shimmering without the 4x or 8x SGSS I'd love to hear about it.

 

I'm about to buy P3D to see if it is any better but I'm not optimistic as I've read of the same shimmering issues in P3D.

 

Ted

Share this post


Link to post

I consider myself picky about image quality, and I just don't have the problems other seem to have with DX10, AA and performance.  Most likely it could be that I only fly GA?  I use Steve's Fixer, 16xCSAA, 4xSSGS, 16xAF, LOD bias -1, and high quality texture filtering.  Using the latest cloud culling in the Fixer coupled with ASN's dynamic cloud radius has pretty much eliminated being hammer by heavy cloud cover, though having a gtx 780 drive a single 1920x1080 panel helps alot (like having a ski boat outboard on a rowboat).  I can see tiny amounts a jaggies in the VC if I look really carefully, and some of the tree models (but not all) shimmer a tiny bit.  The flip side is that everything looks sharp and well focused; I really hate smeary AA side effects and that I do not have (which I had with the DX9 settings I was using, the ENB mod was terrible in that regard).

 

I totally agree with Paul. We've hit a wall and there is no appreciable performance breakthrough since the 2600K when it comes to FSX.  But I do love my haswell and it definately smokes in FSX compared to the i7 860 which it replaced.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry Glenn, we have to disagree. I've built and overclocked a number of Haswell pc's most with better boards and memory, and have found none that perform any better than my clunky old 5.2 gig (now) 2600K. 

 

I didn't suggest that Haswell performs any better than a 2600k at 5.2 Ghz, just that you can obtain EQUAL performance at lower clock speeds with a Haswell.

 

Nick N himself agrees with this as can be seen here in his Haswell guide:

 

"You may decide you like what you see on the screen at the clock you are able to achieve without any modification of the CPU since Haswell is a FAR better chip that Sandy Bridge clock-per-clock. A Haswell at ANY clock speed, including default, is going to outrun a Sandy Bridge of equal clock!

@ 4.1 you can expect the same performance as a SB running 4500, no problem!

@ 4.5 you can expect the same performance as a SB running 5GHz, no problem!

@ 4.8 you can expect the same performance as a SB running 5.3+GHz, no problem!

It only goes up from there."
 
 
 
Architecture DOES make a difference. If you could get a Haswell upto 5.2 GHz it would blow the 2600k away at the same clock speed. 
 
Again, I said that equivalent performance can be obtained at lower clock speeds with Haswell, not better performance. Therefore, the more efficient architecture clearly makes a difference.
 
If this wasn't true, we would still be chasing 8 Ghz on Pentium 4's.
 
As for 'proc speed' in the FSX.cfg, you would have to have the exact formula for how that is calculated at FSX install to be of any meaningful use. If its purely done on Ghz 'speed' then it will not take into account the architectural differences at all. Unless you have this info, I believe that informing people that 'proc speed' is too low is a complete misnomer. It would be interesting to see how this calculates with various different architectures at comparable clock speeds. Maybe you have this info? If so I will sit corrected......

Share this post


Link to post

..and at 4.5 and above, Glenn, requires the cap to be removed so that it can be effectively cooled. That's not something for the average - even experienced guys will do.

 

"If you could get a Haswell upto 5.2 GHz it would blow the 2600k away at the same clock speed."  This still makes no change at all to the original statement that "I may well see a more consistent framerate using a Haswell with a higher clock - say 4.6 or 4.7 - exceeding the continuous average framerate and smoothness which my old 2600k does - but all will sit around 30... 28 at some spots, bouncing around 27 to 32." We are talking about FSX's usually subjective performance, as regular every day flight simmers - and in this context "blow the 2600K away" - isn't the case. It doesn't blow it away.

 

The Haswell is not the Be-All and End-All in the proc world or the FSX world, Glenn. This p*****g on other lesser or greater procs has been going on every year since the inception of the flight sim. It began when the 80-286 replaced the 8088. Then continued with the 386 DX, and then into the 486 - and it has never stopped. Throwing bucks, pounds, marks, etc., based on advertisement and "guru opinion" at a pc case - and suddenly it's a world-beater - is a fallacy. Everything depends upon context. It's what you do with the thing in a particular situation that makes it perform. I will bet that P3D running on a Haswell-based system is going to make P3D running on a fast SB system look pretty poor, because both P3D and the Haswell are "made for each other". I will drool. FSX is not made for the Haswell, the SB - nor even the the Core2Duo without SP2!!! It was also made for XP!

Nevertheless - I am merely stating that a well optimized SB 26 or 2700K will equal the Haswell when running FSX. Most everybody here is going to see their framerates bouncing around the 27 - 30/31 area, with a pretty good experience. The guys running DX10 are going to see something slightly better, with lesser issues (OOM's) and a few added features - whitecaps and smoothness. As Rod says "We've hit a wall and there is no appreciable performance breakthrough since the 2600K when it comes to FSX."

 

In an attempt to bring this obsolescent thread to a close (I hope, because I don't want to spend my retirement talking old shop) - in any IT department there will always be a healthy disagreement between techs, whether it's "the best" server, OS, HP, IBM, Dell, Oracle, database, front end, email, firewall, a/v, protocol, switch, router - you name it.  We work with what we have, and until P3D has the same functionality that FSX-DX10 displays, with it's hardware compatibility, with most every "regular" PC setup and its pretty vast array of great addons - then in my book I'm not spending beaucoup bucks on a proc that needs to be de-lidded in order to give the same FSX performance that my clunky old SB does!

 

All the Best,

 

pj

Share this post


Link to post

Why you "high SGSSAA" guys do not give the nVidia DSR feature a chance? For the moment, I switched and see if this turns out to be "the AA option" for me. Short explanation: I also struggled with the fact that along with my 8x AA setting in the fixer only 8xSGSSAA was really looking good, 4xSGSSAA being still ok but with some jaggies. But, as for you guys, 8xSGSSAA is somehow an overkill when flying in cloudy conditions. Now, I enabled DSR for my Kepler-based GPU (GTX-780) and what to say, it seems that somehow the higher resolution alone with no AA at all seems to be less a problem for those clouds. Currently I run 3840x2160 without AA on my FullHD display and I am really happy with the IQ. Only the slightly decreased AF quality is bothering me a little bit, besides the fact that the menues are ridiculously small now. Anyway, I would recommend to give it a try. If you do not want to mod the 344.24 notebook driver to enable DSR for Kepler cards, simply wait for the next WHQL release, then it will be officially available for all nVidia cards, not only maxwell.

Share this post


Link to post

I use Steve's Fixer, 16xCSAA, 4xSSGS, 16xAF, LOD bias -1, and high quality texture filtering. Using the latest cloud culling in the Fixer coupled with ASN's dynamic cloud radius has pretty much eliminated being hammer by heavy cloud cover, though having a gtx 780 drive a single 1920x1080 panel helps alot (like having a ski boat outboard on a rowboat). I can see tiny amounts a jaggies in the VC if I look really carefully, and some of the tree models (but not all) shimmer a tiny bit. The flip side is that everything looks sharp and well focused; I really hate smeary AA side effects and that I do not have (which I had with the DX9 settings I was using, the ENB mod was terrible in that regard).

I tried your settings last night Rod and had the same results as you described in DX10. The difference is my DX9 image quality looks just as good as DX10. On my system DX9 0x SGSS = DX10 4x SGSS and DX9 2x SGSS = DX10 8xSGSS with regards to image quality and shimmering. This extra SGSS in DX10 brings my FPS below that of DX9 and I need every FPS I can get for my AI Traffic addiction. I like flying the Citation X and it has a healthy appetite for FPS also. I didn't have time last night to experiment with the Fixer's cloud culling or ASN's dynamic cloud radius but will try it next. I appreciate the suggestions.

 

I use MyTrafficX v5.4b and even at 20% it really hits the FPS hard at large airports in major cities like KLAX. Perhaps I have a problem with my AI traffic installation that I need to investigate. The worst shimmering is on my AI Traffic that is parked at airports. In DX10 with 2x SGSS or none the parked AI Traffic shimmers like christmas tree lights. It is annoying on approaches thus I need to run DX10 at 4xSGSS minimum to reduce it.

 

I might try the new Nvidia DSR but I think I will wait until it is incorporated into an official non-beta driver.

 

Ted

Share this post


Link to post

Why you "high SGSSAA" guys do not give the nVidia DSR feature a chance? For the moment, I switched and see if this turns out to be "the AA option" for me. Short explanation: I also struggled with the fact that along with my 8x AA setting in the fixer only 8xSGSSAA was really looking good, 4xSGSSAA being still ok but with some jaggies. But, as for you guys, 8xSGSSAA is somehow an overkill when flying in cloudy conditions. Now, I enabled DSR for my Kepler-based GPU (GTX-780) and what to say, it seems that somehow the higher resolution alone with no AA at all seems to be less a problem for those clouds. Currently I run 3840x2160 without AA on my FullHD display and I am really happy with the IQ. Only the slightly decreased AF quality is bothering me a little bit, besides the fact that the menues are ridiculously small now. Anyway, I would recommend to give it a try. If you do not want to mod the 344.24 notebook driver to enable DSR for Kepler cards, simply wait for the next WHQL release, then it will be officially available for all nVidia cards, not only maxwell.

 

Can you explain what this DSR thing is all about, very short? Is it just higher resolution? How is that going to make a change?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this