I guess I'll buy one of those 6gb gtx 780 EVGAs when they release it.

 

I'll be selling my Titan GTX's as soon as the Titan Z is out in retail ... and no I'm not going to ask ridiculous price (probably $800).

 

Wes had indicated to me that the Shadow Map count should help out performance ... try setting that to Medium.  I honestly haven't noticed a difference between Medium and Max for Shadow Map count, but Wes is clearly the best "word of advice" here.

 

Cheers, Rob.

I'll be selling my Titan GTX's as soon as the Titan Z is out in retail ...

 

 

 

 

I'm considering getting a 4K monitor instead, at about 3 grand (55 in)

 

My R290 runs fine at 3600x1829 (3xDELLs)

I'll be selling my Titan GTX's as soon as the Titan Z is out in retail ... and no I'm not going to ask ridiculous price (probably $800).

 

If you're planning to get one GTX Titan Z, it's better to get two GTX Titan Blacks. The GTX Titan Z is of extremely poor value ($3.000) and only serves a purpose if you want to have two of them (or if you want to use only one slot in your motherboard). With two GTX Titan Blacks you'll get the exact same performance at $800 less.

Adding to CB's post, I'd also say that as someone that has been doing multi-gpu for years, the only way I'd consider going the "2 GPUs on A Stick" route, is if my motherboard did not allow for adequate spacing between cards/rest of system for cooling purposes.

 

Even then I'd probably consider going water before any dual GPU card. 

I can't make my mind up which I prefer  FSX DX10 or P3DV2.2, both have similar performance, both similar mini stutters, P3D looks better from a weather view but FSX seems to have the edge on autogen and ground views, the slightly washed out look of  FSX ground views seems easier on the eye than DX11 bright and shiny views, both have global base and vector and OPUS.

 

Its not like for like, I have sliders further back for FSX, but my overall impression is that I can't choose between them and I certainly can't see FSX being ditched soon.

I can't make my mind up which I prefer  FSX DX10 or P3DV2.2, both have similar performance, both similar mini stutters, P3D looks better from a weather view but FSX seems to have the edge on autogen and ground views, the slightly washed out look of  FSX ground views seems easier on the eye than DX11 bright and shiny views, both have global base and vector and OPUS.

 

Its not like for like, I have sliders further back for FSX, but my overall impression is that I can't choose between them and I certainly can't see FSX being ditched soon.

 

You don't have to make up your mind yet. According to Wes Bard, the performance in Prepar3D 2.x will continue to evolve. Wait at least for the next patch and if you feel that Prepar3D gives you more, make the switch.

Another test you can do to duplicate issue is get some nasty weather from ASN with rain, set time to 7am ... notice very low frame rates.  Do nothing else other than change the time of day to Noon and frame rates will almost double.  The position of the sun (and current view angle) appear to be the triggers.  If I turn Cloud Shadows OFF, I don't experience any significant change in FPS regardless of time of day, so I think it's "safe" to suggest cloud shadows are inducing the performance load.

 

Also, whenever testing graphic settings difference, I always follow this process:

 

1.  Make one and only one change to the graphics settings

2.  Exit P3D

3.  Delete my shaders

4.  Load up flight from desktop (double click the fxml file)

 

What I've noticed is that too many simultaneous changes to my graphics settings can result in odd behavior (i.e. Trees not appearing at all), cloud shadows not happening, etc.  So I've adopted the 4 step process above whenever I'm changing/testing settings.

 

Cheers, Rob.

I have also noticed this issue.

 

I use the time of day preview to move the sun low behind a cloud and my fps virtually halve.

 

Turning off cloud shadows restores fps.

 

Turning shadow map to medium also eases the issue somewhat (25% reduction rather than 50%).

 

 

My R290 runs fine at 3600x1829 (3xDELLs)

 

That's good to know, I've been trying to get details on how the R290 is running in P3DV2.2 ... can you share your P3DV2.2 five display page settings with me?

 

 

 

With two GTX Titan Blacks you'll get the exact same performance at $800 less.

 

I haven't seen any performance tests of the Titan Z vs. two Titan Blacks SLi, do you have a link?   And yes two Titan Z's is something I'm considering for the future ... but not because of P3DV2.x, I have other general purpose computing software/projects that can use the Z's.  But as far as price/performance goes, I can't imagine the Z is "good value" -- but need to see some performance comparison.

 

Cheers, Rob.

I'm surprised that anyone's surprised about the shadows eating performance at dawn/dusk.

 

Shadows are very demanding so it's surely obvious that at dawn/dusk shadows give a larger performance hit as the shadow drawn is much longer/larger due to the angle of the Sun compared to day shadows where the shadow is beneath the cloud.

 

Id like to know you guys with your 780 titan cards how much this affects tour performance ie is it stuttering what are tour actual framerates and what is thé load on thé gpu? Is it still visually ok with shadows at dawn/dusk?

I certainly can't see FSX being ditched soon

 

It was ditched 7 years or so ago  ... but I understand what you mean, 3rd party support for it should stay around for a while ... it's following the same pattern of "motion" as FS9 to FSX.  Might be sped up a little given there is active development of P3D by LM.  3rd party have both enjoyed 7 years of a static platform with FSX, but at the same time it's limited what they can do ... the door is now back open again.

 

Cheers, Rob.

I haven't seen any performance tests of the Titan Z vs. two Titan Blacks SLi, do you have a link?   And yes two Titan Z's is something I'm considering for the future ... but not because of P3DV2.x, I have other general purpose computing software/projects that can use the Z's.  But as far as price/performance goes, I can't imagine the Z is "good value" -- but need to see some performance comparison.

 

I don't think there is any performance comparison anywhere, but it really shouldn't be different. The GTX Titan Black, like the GTX 780 Ti, has all 15 SMX units enabled. The GTX Titan Z has two of the exact same cores slapped in the PCB, so two of the GTX Titan Black would be the same.

 

The only disadvantage is that you would have 6GB of total VRAM (instead of 12GB) but even for 4K, 6GB is more than enough.

The only disadvantage is that you would have 6GB of total VRAM (instead of 12GB) but even for 4K, 6GB is more than enough.

 

Small correction, the 12GB on the Z is still only 6GB functional, as in any current multi-GPU setup, VRAM is mirrored between the cards.

 

So 2x Titan Black is 2 GPUs with 6GB each, and Titan Z is also 2 GPUs with 6GB each.

 

A minor point, but just wanted to clarify.

Small correction, the 12GB on the Z is still only 6GB functional, as in any current multi-GPU setup, VRAM is mirrored between the cards.

 

So 2x Titan Black is 2 GPUs with 6GB each, and Titan Z is also 2 GPUs with 6GB each.

 

A minor point, but just wanted to clarify.

 

Actually, this does not apply to the GTX Titan Z. While it is two GPUs, it is actually two cores slapped in the same PCB. So unlike regular SLI, there is no mirroring to be found.

Actually, this does not apply to the GTX Titan Z. While it is two GPUs, it is actually two cores slapped in the same PCB. So unlike regular SLI, there is no mirroring to be found.

 

Do you have a source for this ?

 

Titan Z is far from the first dual GPU card to have both GPUs on the same PCB, so that really isn't important/unique.

 

It is however, and absolute for all current multi-GPU configs running AFR, that each GPU must have an independent frame buffer, and that the contents of both be identical for AFR to work. It's just how AFR works, and isn't something that will likely change any time soon.

 

If you have any information otherwise I'd really like to read it, as that would be quite the development. 

 

EDIT:

 

On the memory front GTX Titan Z is configured with 12GB of VRAM, 6GB per GPU

 

 

from http://www.anandtech.com/show/7897/nvidia-announces-geforce-gtx-titan-z-dualgpu-gk110-for-3000

 

Just sayin'....it's one of the realities of CFX/SLI as it stands today. I wish the marketing would word things more clearly to avoid confusion, but, unfortunately that will probably never happen.

 

 

I don't think there is any performance comparison anywhere, but it really shouldn't be different.

 

The advantage is shorter electrical distances (offers more stability and less latency) ... no bus or SLi connectors to deal with.  How that translates to what is ultimately presented is yet to be determine.  What is needed is excellent rasterization and fillrate.

 

I think the best price/performance GPU will be the GTX 790 due in May.

 

 

If you have any information otherwise I'd really like to read it, as that would be quite the development. 

 

For general purpose computing (what I'll be doing also) you can use all 12GB ... for SLi 3D work then yes 6GB each.

 

Cheers, Rob.