Archived

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

stefltt

XPX and graphic cards

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I would like to change my current GC an old GTX570.

From your experience, which card performs better in X-Plane X, NVidia or ATI, in Windows 7 ?

I've read I need a card with a lot of RAM, at least 4Gb.

 

Stephane

Share this post


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

From your experience, which card performs better in X-Plane X, NVidia or ATI, in Windows 7 ?

I've read I need a card with a lot of RAM, at least 4Gb.

 

NVidia GTX 770.

With ATI you can consider yourself lucky if you have a driver version that has a fully functional OpenGL support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read I need a card with a lot of RAM, at least 4Gb.

 

The more, the better - for obvious reasons :rolleyes:. But you don't necessarily need at least 4 GB ... I still had quite reasonable results with my 2 years old GTX 580 (1.5 GB) as you can see in my videos :P. Since 2 months I also own the GTX 770 (4 GB), and I could turn the rendering options even more up (especially the texture resolution).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

I would like to change my current GC an old GTX570.

From your experience, which card performs better in X-Plane X, NVidia or ATI, in Windows 7 ?

I've read I need a card with a lot of RAM, at least 4Gb.

 

Stephane

 

I would go nVidia. I've had ATI before but they've given me much trouble (especially when flight simming). First I had the 5870, then the 7970 and now I have the GTX780 and, to be honest, I'm quite done with ATI. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the model make a big difference with same VRAM? I'm also looking at upgrading to a 4GB card in the next few months; will a GTX770 4GB give noticeably better performance than a GTX760 4GB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the model make a big difference with same VRAM? I'm also looking at upgrading to a 4GB card in the next few months; will a GTX770 4GB give noticeably better performance than a GTX760 4GB?

 

 

Here is a video to give you some idea of the frame rate differences using some of the latest most graphics intensive games.......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about the latest new AMD R9 290X ? According to the tests, they are performing like a GTX780 on many games and are better than the GTX770.

 

Stephane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about the latest new AMD R9 290X ? According to the tests, they are performing like a GTX780 on many games and are better than the GTX770.

 

Stephane

 

This is a speed comparison, but keep in mind that prices have changed since this review, and 770's can be found for much cheaper now. (And 780s have dropped as well)

 

Also be aware that ATI open GL driver support has not earned the greatest marks in the past. (not sure what its like right now)

 

FSX users also tend to go Nvidia, which may or may not be helpful information for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also be aware that ATI open GL driver support has not earned the greatest marks in the past. (not sure what its like right now)

Are you joking? At the moment all newer AMD Driver are no longer able to handle HDR correctly in X-Plane! It looks like their driver support is steadily declining.

Seems rather like a 680 to me:

 

Not when you can find a 770 for a lower price, since it is the 680 on steroids (higher clock rate for the VRAM and better cooling)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you jokung? At the moment all newer AMD Driver are no longer able to handle HDR correctly in X-Plane! It looks like their driver support is steadily declining.

 

I understood there was a problem with a specific driver (13.11) that could be resolved by using an earlier version. (13.9)

 

As I said, traditionally ATI open GL support has been perceived to be spotty, but that's not always the case.

 

Even so, last I knew it was acknowledged that the problem might be coming from the X-plane side........

 

EDIT: http://asn-xp.aerosoft.com/?p=5890

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a video to give you some idea of the frame rate differences using some of the latest most graphics intensive games.......

 

 

Interesting, cheers. Seems like the Titan and the normal 780 are very similar. The 770 did seem to have about 10 frames on the 760 in most situations but will that also apply to XPlane? Some of the comments for this vid suggest an overclocked 760 is probably the best cost performer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even so, last I knew it was acknowledged that the problem might be coming from the X-plane side........

Not quite. This is guesswork by Ben, since AMD so regularly screws up. But that even the newest stable release 13.12 fails, indicates that AMD simply doesn't care.

Interesting, cheers. Seems like the Titan and the normal 780 are very similar. The 770 did seem to have about 10 frames on the 760 in most situations but will that also apply to XPlane? Some of the comments for this vid suggest an overclocked 760 is probably the best cost performer.

Be careful. The main performance boost for X-Plane is the amount of VRAM. You can get better results from a 770 with 4 GB than from a 780 with 3 GB. At the moment X-Plane doesn't use so many shaders, so even smaller cards can achieve the same performance if they have as much VRAM available, but this might change in the future since X-Plane wants to make better use of the shaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


The main performance boost for X-Plane is the amount of VRAM

 

That's what I was wondering. So in X-Plane a 4GB 770 won't make much of an improvement over a 4GB 760?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the informations. I will have a look what is available in french online stores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with GTX 680 everything full and clicked except AA is FXAA. = 15-20 fps.  I love the environment so much that i reject to lower graphics :D 
 

Edit: Forgot to mention,  nvidia is better than ATI imao but new series may be better never tried them. (290x 290 vs vs)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I was wondering. So in X-Plane a 4GB 770 won't make much of an improvement over a 4GB 760?

 

Well, I tried a little experiment. Everyone and their dog seems to be aiming to get a 4gb graphics card, but is it really necessary? I took a look at a video, done with these reported settings and this equipment:

 

GTX 770 4 GB

Intel Core i7 4770 3.4 GhZ

OCZ Vertex 4 SSD

8 GB RAM

Linux Mint 15, 64 bit

 

Scenery settings: HDR on (4x SSAA+FXAA), objects TOO MANY, trees OVERGROWN, roads TONS, shadows HIGH, detail distance HIGH, anisotropic filter 16x, cars Siberia, clouds 35%, texture resolution VERY HIGH, compress VRAM textures off. Visibility 100, clouds variable.

 

 

Watching that video, I noted his FPS seemed to bottom out at about 13 and top out at 19, only going higher when he switched to evening which effectively took shadows out of the equation. 

 

My system: i7 920 @ 4ghz \ Corsair H80 Cpu Cooler \ Asus P6T Deluxe\Sound Blaster Recon3D Fatal1ty

Nvidia 770GTX 2gb \ 6 Gigs Corsair Ram 7-7-7-20 1N \ Windows7 Ultimate 64Bit

 

I then matched those settings on my 2gb card; only as a stress test I had both X-plane 10 default scenery and Aerosofts ManhattanX running simultaneously. Not surprisingly, my frames ranged between 14 and 10 which was actually better than I was expecting with those settings especially since I chose a time when shadows were very elongated.

 

ohrz.jpg

 
Switching to just to Xplane with the videos same settings netted me.... pretty much the exact same FPS he was showing. (see pic below)
 
Granted, my Cpu is overclocked to 4.0 GHz but his Cpu automatically scales to 3.80 GHz and is a newer architecture. He also has more ram than me. Functionally, the systems are very close, yet his extra Vram made no effective difference. Additionally, my texture load was less than 1Gb and handled easily by my card.
 
6stv.jpg
 
It seems that the place where X-plane really takes advantage of more Vram is when textures are maxed (extreme) and probably when uncompressed settings are used. For myself, I find the visual difference so small that I never use those higher settings anyway.
 
Based on what I have been seeing, my conclusion is that If I was forced to choose between a faster 2gb card and a slower 4gb I would likely go for the faster 2gb card. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With VRAM, you either have enough, or you don't. If the sim is only pushing 600 MB of textures, having a ton of VRAM sitting there all empty will not enhance performance. However if you're trying to display 1,500 MB of textures with a 1GB card, everything will slow to a crawl because textures have to be constantly swapped to main RAM over the slow PCI-E interface.

 

Also keep in mind that X-Plane *needs* ~19 FPS or more. If you get less, the whole simulation engine will run in slow-motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


It seems that the place where X-plane really takes advantage of more Vram is when textures are maxed (extreme) and probably when uncompressed settings are used. For myself, I find the visual difference so small that I never use those higher settings anyway.

 

And maybe VRAM is needed if you use HD Mesh V2 from Altpilotx and OSM sceneries at the same time with an add-on like the 757 or the 777 from FlightFactor, I think.

Actually Win7 is telling me that I need to close the program because I am running out of memory (I have 8Gb RAM)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And maybe VRAM is needed if you use HD Mesh V2 from Altpilotx and OSM sceneries at the same time with an add-on like the 757 or the 777 from FlightFactor, I think.

Actually Win7 is telling me that I need to close the program because I am running out of memory (I have 8Gb RAM)

I am using the hd mesh as well, but yes, if you are throwing the kitchen sink at the sim,your ram usage will be higher. But I think xplane gives you good control of that. For instance, if you are flying a tubeliner up above the clouds, why would you need high resolution ground textures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And maybe VRAM is needed if you use HD Mesh V2 from Altpilotx and OSM sceneries at the same time with an add-on like the 757 or the 777 from FlightFactor, I think.

 

Especially something like OSM + Autogen, add the European Library in a European setting, HD Mesh 2 (in some locations it needs dramatically more RAM than in others. In NYC the needed RAM sholud be pretty low),a plane with HD textures, and a few custom buildings and you will know where VRAM is needed. I had to lower my resolution to very high after a flight through Frankfurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first, I was going to buy an AMD R9 290X but after reading the different answers, my choice will be an EVGA GeForce GTX 770 Dual FTW ACX Cooler 4 Go.

It seems that the latest Catalyst Drivers have problems with HDR in XPX, and they recommend to revert back to the previous one, but unfortunately, they are not suitable for the latest 290X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first, I was going to buy an AMD R9 290X but after reading the different answers, my choice will be an EVGA GeForce GTX 770 Dual FTW ACX Cooler 4 Go.

It seems that the latest Catalyst Drivers have problems with HDR in XPX, and they recommend to revert back to the previous one, but unfortunately, they are not suitable for the latest 290X.

 

 

Oh K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The VRAM amount has nothing to do with the performance,unless you are getting close the MAX amount of the card,or even pass it,then the GPU needs to do some inside optimizations and that KILLS the fps.

For example:

GTX 770 2GB VS R9 280X 4GB.

 

These 2 are supposed to give you pretty much the same performance,but when you well reach 2GB+ of VRAM (And it mostly depends on the resolution of your textures&your monitor) the GTX770 will struggle because it's reaching his MAX VRAM amount while the R9 280X still has many free VRAM space,so,in this kind of situations,the R9 280X will give MUCH better performance.

 

I guess that XP10 when maximizing settings will reach about 2.5gb at 1920X1080, so it'll be safe to buy a 3GB (GTX780 3GB is great per value after the decrease in it's price)

 

BTW when XP10 will use Open GL4.1 (and this will happen with 10.30),the VRAM usage is supposed to get much lower,although there will be more effects and eye candy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites