Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GSalden

How much VRAM does P3D v2 use on your system ?

Recommended Posts

Indeed--have a look. The first shot is w/ Shadows set at Ultra (all receive checked), w/ vegetation/autogen at Extreme. Note VRAM & GPU use.

SFO Extreme Vegetation & Autogen Shadows Ultra .jpg

 

Now here's autogen/vegetation at Extreme, but Shadows still at Ultra:

SFO Extreme Vegetation & Autogen Shadows .jpg

 

The 3rd shot is w/ Shadows at High, but vegetation & autogen at Normal:

SFO Normal Vegetation & Normal Autogen Shadows High .jpg

 

It's really setting Shadows at Ultra AND Extreme autogen/vegetation that really pushes GPU utilization. I quite frankly don't appreciate a visual difference when shadows are set to Ultra versus High. What is completely unclear to me still, and I think this can be sorted out by testing, how much of the total burden of the what FSX processes (i.e., all the non-DirectX work, autogen, mesh, LOD, etc) is done by the GPU in V2 versus how much of the total work by the GPU is dedicated to DirectX effects as it were: tessellation & shadowing for example.

Incredible the high usage of vram.

No game on the market , with more detail, need this amount...

 

What does one need with a 3 monitor surround setup..... .


13900 8 cores @ 5.5-5.8 GHz / 8 cores @ 4.3 GHz (hyperthreading on) - Asus ROG Strix Gaming D4 - GSkill Ripjaws 2x 16 Gb 4266 mhz @ 3200 mhz / cas 13 -  Inno3D RTX4090 X3 iCHILL 24 Gb - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 2TB - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 1Tb - Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - Thermaltake Level 10 GT case - EKWB Extreme 240 liquid cooling set push/pull - 2x 55’ Sony 4K tv's as front view and right view.

13600  6 cores @ 5.1 GHz / 8 cores @ 4.0 GHz (hypterthreading on) - Asus ROG Strix Gaming D - GSkill Trident 4x Gb 3200 MHz cas 15 - Asus TUF RTX 4080 16 Gb  - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 2TB - 2x  Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - Corsair D4000 Airflow case - NXT Krajen Z63 AIO liquide cooling - 1x 65” Sony 4K tv as left view.

FOV : 190 degrees

My flightsim vids :  https://www.youtube.com/user/fswidesim/videos?shelf_id=0&sort=dd&view=0

 

Share this post


Link to post

$2000 for two Titans or Christmas presents for people?  Hmmm.

 

I'm curious Gerard how your experiment with the two Titans in SLI works out.  Too bad you sold off your 3 monitors to get the Titan though, because I was hoping to see what would happen with your 3 screens and two Titans!

 

I guess we won't really have a clear picture about SLI anyway though until it is implemented supposedly in 2.1.

 

I'm unable to go to P3D yet partially because it wouldn't make sense for me on my current GPU limited hardware, so I'm reliant on discussions such as these in order to determine the best configuration for an upgrade, hoping that it won't cost an arm and a leg, but already knowing that it will!

Share this post


Link to post

Hahaha....yes a pity that I had to sell my 3 26" monitors, but

 

 

lucky me I have 3 32" now... :-)


13900 8 cores @ 5.5-5.8 GHz / 8 cores @ 4.3 GHz (hyperthreading on) - Asus ROG Strix Gaming D4 - GSkill Ripjaws 2x 16 Gb 4266 mhz @ 3200 mhz / cas 13 -  Inno3D RTX4090 X3 iCHILL 24 Gb - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 2TB - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 1Tb - Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - Thermaltake Level 10 GT case - EKWB Extreme 240 liquid cooling set push/pull - 2x 55’ Sony 4K tv's as front view and right view.

13600  6 cores @ 5.1 GHz / 8 cores @ 4.0 GHz (hypterthreading on) - Asus ROG Strix Gaming D - GSkill Trident 4x Gb 3200 MHz cas 15 - Asus TUF RTX 4080 16 Gb  - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 2TB - 2x  Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - Corsair D4000 Airflow case - NXT Krajen Z63 AIO liquide cooling - 1x 65” Sony 4K tv as left view.

FOV : 190 degrees

My flightsim vids :  https://www.youtube.com/user/fswidesim/videos?shelf_id=0&sort=dd&view=0

 

Share this post


Link to post

Incredible the high usage of vram.

No game on the market , with more detail, need this amount...

 

What does one need with a 3 monitor surround setup..... .

I've thought about picking up a 2nd Titan myself, but I'm not so sure that will help much for single displays especially.  What I've asked about on the P3D hardware forum is if they can comment on the relative impact on CPU/DRAM versus GPU/VRAM as they relate to the various configurations in the settings dialogue.  For example, if one puts the autogen & vegetation sliders to Extreme, how much does that impact each subsystem.  Is it roughly 50:50, or more like 70:30, i.e. 70% impact to the CPU, 30% GPU?  Whereas for the shadow quality slider, is it more like 20:80 for example?  As in FSX, what starts to matter is how the sim runs in the most complex of areas.  Right now I'm guessing the PMDG stuff is not going to run well in very complex areas, and I really can't tell whether another Titan will have much impact on that.   I'd definitely consider a 2nd Titan but as I say I'm not so sure it will help a whole lot compared to what the first Titan did--but hopefully we'll know soon eh Gerard?  I'm also a little bummed w/ the apparent fact one doesn't get access to 12Gb of VRAM under this scenario or so I read here from most posters.  Once I saw 5.9Gb VRAM use I began to think about that!


Noel

System:  9900K@5.0gHz@1.23v all cores, MSI MPG Z390M GAMING EDGE AC, Noctua NH-D15S w/ steady supply of 40-60F ambient air intake, Corsair Vengeance 32Gb LPX 3200mHz DDR4, Sabrent NVMe 2Tb x 2, RTX 4090 FE, Corsair RM 850W PSU, Win10 Pro, LG Ultra Curved Gsync Ultimate 3440x1440, TCA Boeing Edition Yoke & TQ, Cessna Trim Wheel, RTSS Framerate Limiter w/ Edge Sync for near zero Frametime Variance achieving ultra-fluid animation at lower frame rates.

Aircraft used in A Pilot's Life V2:  PMDG 738, Aerosoft CRJ700, FBW A320NX, WT 787X

 

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting post form LM today on GPU usage and comparisons to FSX:

 

Word Not Allowed,
A couple of quick points to make there, the autogen is 100% rendered on the GPU. That being said, there is still a fair amount of work to be done every frame figuring out which trees to draw, and submitting them to the GPU for rendering. At the highest autogen settings, in 2.0 the number of trees being rendered is much higher. Depending on the area the total number of buildings and trees can more than double. In addition, if you have the settings "the same" you are also getting dynamically lit terrain, a more complex lighting model, much improved paging performance, and a larger LOD radius before getting blurry terrain textures, to name a few things.

Zach Heylmun
Software Engineer - Prepar3D® Team

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting post form LM today on GPU usage and comparisons to FSX:

 

Word Not Allowed,

A couple of quick points to make there, the autogen is 100% rendered on the GPU. That being said, there is still a fair amount of work to be done every frame figuring out which trees to draw, and submitting them to the GPU for rendering. At the highest autogen settings, in 2.0 the number of trees being rendered is much higher. Depending on the area the total number of buildings and trees can more than double. In addition, if you have the settings "the same" you are also getting dynamically lit terrain, a more complex lighting model, much improved paging performance, and a larger LOD radius before getting blurry terrain textures, to name a few things.

Zach Heylmun

Software Engineer - Prepar3D® Team

 

I am wondering what this part of the statement means:

"if you have the settings "the same" you are also getting dynamically lit terrain, a more complex lighting model"

 

Does this mean the building and tree autogen sliders are set the same? Just a little confusing.

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


Does this mean the building and tree autogen sliders are set the same? Just a little confusing.

 

No, he means that if you have the same autogen settings in FSX and P3D, then it is not an "apples to apples" comparison because of the additional things that P3D does. Word Not Allowed has done some benchmarking purporting to show that FPS is better in FSX than P3D with the "same" settings. This is in response to that.

Share this post


Link to post

No, he means that if you have the same autogen settings in FSX and P3D, then it is not an "apples to apples" comparison because of the additional things that P3D does. Word Not Allowed has done some benchmarking purporting to show that FPS is better in FSX than P3D with the "same" settings. This is in response to that.

 

Ah... Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Regards

Bob

Share this post


Link to post

In simple terms, Word Not Allowed's testing methodology was fatally flawed from the outset, therefore his suppositions are invalid.


Fr. Bill    

AOPA Member: 07141481 AARP Member: 3209010556


     Avsim Board of Directors | Avsim Forums Moderator

Share this post


Link to post

I still say the VRAM panic is a bit blown out of proportion.  Remember when Windows Vista came out and everyone was panicing.. OMG IT"S BLOATED USING 2GB OF RAM!! But it also ran w/ 512MB of RAM.  Then Windows 7 did the same thing but also could run on a system with 512MB fairly well and the entire OS was much snappier than Vista..  By Windows 8 everyone forgot the OS is sitting on 2GB of RAM usage. I'm seriously thinking LM were accurate with their recommended 1GB of VRAM..  We don't know what some of the bugs are doing yet with usage at all. While v2 wasn't the prettiest release I've seen it's more than obvious Beau and Wes are  two of the most knowledgeable and well organized developers I've ever seen and trust their "1GB" of VRAM recommendation.  It's taking liberties only because it's available, just like the OS's I listed earlier.  If v2 really needed 3GB+ of VRAM you'd see 80% of this forum complaining about framerates... Which no one is.. The biggest complaint is OOM..


ASUS ROG STRIX Z390-E GAMING / i9-9900k @ 4.7 all cores w/ NOCTUA NH-D15S / 2080ti / 32GB G.Skill 3200 RIPJAWS / 1TB Evo SSD / 500GB Evo SSD /  2x 3TB HDD / CORSAIR CRYSTAL 570X / IPSG 850W 80+ PLATINUM / Dual 4k Monitors 

Share this post


Link to post

I have to agree that 1GB of VRAM is the absolute minimum requirement. After all, I was running P3Dv2 completely "virgin" on my decrepit GTX550Ti 1GB card with smooth performance and modest frame rates, albeit with only ~40% settings...

 

Day before yesterday I installed my shiny new GTX770 4GB Super Clocked card after blowing out the old 550 drivers. Just as an experiment, after installing the new drivers for the 770, I launched P3Dv2 without changing a single setting.

 

The difference in performance was nothing short of phenomenal. I saw an unshakable 60fps with my previous settings, whereas with the old card I had a miserly 17-24 fps. I'm still in the process of exploring the various display options, but I am entirely satisfied with my $399 purchase.


Fr. Bill    

AOPA Member: 07141481 AARP Member: 3209010556


     Avsim Board of Directors | Avsim Forums Moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

 

 


In simple terms, Word Not Allowed's testing methodology was fatally flawed from the outset, therefore his suppositions are invalid.

 

Agree, he does seem to jump to conclusions a little too prematurely and his method is not very scientific ... "looks about the same" -- not something a scientific methodology would allow - it's almost as if he's doing the testing to prove his point/theory rather than to see if his theory has some validity.  I've had my fair share of theories that turn out to be false or partially right, but I'm sharing information and ideas not writing a book.  

 

Word Not Allowed's AutoGen blog was a good example, did he actually count every single autogen object in FSX and in P3D, no he didn't.  Even within the same product (P3DV2) Dense vs. Very Dense "looks about the same" to me also, but if I zoom way out and up and do an overview, then "try" to count the objects I seem there really is a difference (as much as 25% more depending on the world location - another variable that skews any observations).  But it's his blog and his personal opinion ... it's always good to validate someone else's opinion.

 

But having said that, I hope Word Not Allowed keeps on testing and blogging ... it keeps people thinking about FS'ing and interest is generated even from conflicting results.

Share this post


Link to post

Rob, that's the precise point. L-M developers have deliberately set up the display options of those in common with FSX/A such that -in general terms- mid-range settings are roughly equivalent to FSX/A's highest settings.

 

They did this to provide for future scalability. I've always wondered if such flexibility and forward thinking truly is such a wise idea... :ph34r:


Fr. Bill    

AOPA Member: 07141481 AARP Member: 3209010556


     Avsim Board of Directors | Avsim Forums Moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

The difference in performance was nothing short of phenomenal. I saw an unshakable 60fps with my previous settings, whereas with the old card I had a miserly 17-24 fps. I'm still in the process of exploring the various display options, but I am entirely satisfied with my $399 purchase.

 

Good to hear! That's a huge difference!!!

Share this post


Link to post

If your going to do 'scientific' testing, its obligatory to publish your testing method together with your results. This will ensure that others who want to test your theory, can confirm or challenge the results or method. Of course, if your peers agree with your results, they become credible.

 

I agree with both Bill and Rob. First and foremost, Kostas testing was flawed and therefore invalid, and that carrying out such testing even if done incorrectly, will spark other interesting observations and discussions. In this case, further insider information has been disclosed. Of course, when your peers expose your week methods, hopefully you learn from it!

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  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...