Just interested, May I ask why?

Mostly due to their spate of BIOS clock issues on recent boards that can severely impact high-precision software like simulations, including PMDG products. To be fair, I have never had an issue with their graphics cards and laptops etc. I wont touch their boards though.

 

 

Wont touch ASUS

 

As I said to the OP, everyone must find what works best for them.  Myself, I'm exactly the opposite but for a different reason.  Gigabyte boards just didn't seem as stable or last as long on severe OC's like the ASUS boards.  To each their own!

 

 

As I said to the OP, everyone must find what works best for them. Myself, I'm exactly the opposite but for a different reason. Gigabyte boards just didn't seem as stable or last as long on severe OC's like the ASUS boards. To each their own!

You are probably right, but then what I term overclock is usually the highest I can get WITHOUT touching voltages etc. This way all my gear lasts and no danger of frying anything. Not as much fun though... ha ha! ASUS does have a good rep in the overclocking circle, but with a dodgy CMOS clock crashing your PMDG product, whats the point?

 Before making the move to P3D.........

Now that changes everything!

 

We are here in an FSX forum trying to help a guy choose a new GPU.

 

Although most of your tips are good info also for FSX.....but when you come here and tell us you are getting 30fps anywhere on a GTX760, then this is misleading for the OP!

(I know misleading him was not your intention....maybe confusing is a better word)

 

He might have thought for a second that he should get 3 GPUs and get two of them to work in SLI.

Totally wasting his money (in my opinion).

I am glad I asked you how you use this "physx splitting" and I am glad you explained that you are using P3D.

 

I never used P3D so I dont know all the differences.

Most of it is the same as FSX I guess, but there are some important differences when comparing it to FSX for performance.

For instance I read that you can spread the P3D load over multiple PCs.....something that can not be done with FSX (I am aware there is something called wideview..but dont want to go into that here).

So if someone would come here and tell us.....hey I get 30fps anywhere with a small notebook.....then we would all go huh, what, how?!

If he then tells us....well I am using 20notebooks together to run P3D.....well yeah duh.....but that is not comparing apples with apples.

See what I mean?

 

Anyway, thx for all the info....but I will stick to my earlier recommendations to him.

Now that changes everything!

 

We are here in an FSX forum trying to help a guy choose a new GPU.

 

Although most of your tips are good info also for FSX.....but when you come here and tell us you are getting 30fps anywhere on a GTX760, then this is misleading for the OP!

(I know misleading him was not your intention....maybe confusing is a better word)

 

He might have thought for a second that he should get 3 GPUs and get two of them to work in SLI.

Totally wasting his money (in my opinion).

I am glad I asked you how you use this "physx splitting" and I am glad you explained that you are using P3D.

 

I never used P3D so I dont know all the differences.

Most of it is the same as FSX I guess, but there are some important differences when comparing it to FSX for performance.

For instance I read that you can spread the P3D load over multiple PCs.....something that can not be done with FSX (I am aware there is something called wideview..but dont want to go into that here).

So if someone would come here and tell us.....hey I get 30fps anywhere with a small notebook.....then we would all go huh, what, how?!

If he then tells us....well I am using 20notebooks together to run P3D.....well yeah duh.....but that is not comparing apples with apples.

See what I mean?

 

Anyway, thx for all the info....but I will stick to my earlier recommendations to him.

 

Slow your roll, chief.  You didn't read the post correctly. Perhaps I wasn't clear.  My entire post referred to my FSX setup.  I am not running P3D yet, waiting on cables as I said.

 

As I said, those results and that SLI/single card was my FSX setup.  I ran FSX on the slow single 760GTX and used the SLI cards as Physx.  THIS WAS MY FSX SETUP.  Said it again just so you'd pick that up.  SINGLE 760GTX IN FSX.  FSX DOESN'T USE SLI.

 

I feel like I already said this like twice, maybe 3 times here.  Not trying to be ugly, but you just negated everything I said without a full understanding of what it is I actually wrote.

 

My lowest FPS with the T7 ever was at Fly Tampa OMDB in the VC was 28.  I think you should read my post again.  The only difference between my FSX setup and my P3D setup is that all three cards are now SLI and are in use.

Slow your roll, chief.  You didn't read the post correctly. Perhaps I wasn't clear.  My entire post referred to my FSX setup.  I am not running P3D yet, waiting on cables as I said.

Ok something was/is not clear that is for sure!

Let's move forward.

 

 

As I said, those results and that SLI/single card was my FSX setup.ran FSX on the slow single 760GTX and used the SLI cards as Physx.  THIS WAS MY FSX SETUP. Said it again just so you'd pick that up.  SINGLE 760GTX IN FSX.  FSX DOESN'T USE SLI.

Ok so even on FSX you can split the calculations that are going on over a single GPU and two more GPUs that are in SLI mode??

That is a new (and interesting) concept to me.

Can the same be done with just two GPUs or does it have to be SLI?

Like a GTX680 for Physx calculations and a GTX780 for the rest of FSX?

 

 

I feel like I already said this like twice, maybe 3 times here.  Not trying to be ugly, but you just negated everything I said without a full understanding of what it is I actually wrote.

Yes I did, because I thought you were using P3D with that SLI setup...not FSX. I was afraid my previous post was going to annoy you so I tried to post as friendly as possible. Still not friendly enough it seems. Sorry about that.

 

 

My lowest FPS with the T7 ever was at Fly Tampa OMDB in the VC was 28. 

That is crazy.....I have the same CPU as you, running at 4.4GHz combined with a GTX680.

And still I get only 18fps (while FSX is internally locked at 30) when I take off with the PMDG777 from the default KJFK airport but with GEX/UTX around.

You are doing so much better......and with Fly Tampa OMDB!!!......it is hard to believe!

Are you also getting those minimum 28fps during take of roll?

 

 

I think you should read my post again.  The only difference between my FSX setup and my P3D setup is that all three cards are now SLI and are in use.

Huh? I thought you said you are not using P3D yet?

I guess 3 way SLI will be your setup in the future when you start using P3D?

Ok something was/is not clear that is for sure!

Let's move forward.

 

 

Ok so even on FSX you can split the calculations that are going on over a single GPU and two more GPUs that are in SLI mode??

That is a new (and interesting) concept to me.

Can the same be done with just two GPUs or does it have to be SLI?

Like a GTX680 for Physx calculations and a GTX780 for the rest of FSX?

 

 

Yes I did, because I thought you were using P3D with that SLI setup...not FSX. I was afraid my previous post was going to annoy you so I tried to post as friendly as possible. Still not friendly enough it seems. Sorry about that.

 

 

That is crazy.....I have the same CPU as you, running at 4.4GHz combined with a GTX680.

And still I get only 18fps (while FSX is internally locked at 30) when I take off with the PMDG777 from the default KJFK airport but with GEX/UTX around.

You are doing so much better......and with Fly Tampa OMDB!!!......it is hard to believe!

Are you also getting those minimum 28fps during take of roll?

 

 

Huh? I thought you said you are not using P3D yet?

I guess 3 way SLI will be your setup in the future when you start using P3D?

 

Sorry, I think we're saying some of the same things..  OK, I was a little harsh on that post, please accept my apologies.  Been working 16 hr days for two weeks with no end in sight...

 

Here is my mobo.  I used an EVGA GTX760 SC for FSX.  It was in my last 16x slot. I have often wondered why people get bad framerates because I even got 25+ FPS using AMD cards 2 or 3 years ago.  Not sure exactly what I'm doing right, or what others are doing that's different.

 

Having said that, my SLI setup was in slots 1 (x16) and 3 (x16).  I assigned them as PhysX units in NCP.  I have no idea if they helped.  However, when running FSX, I had no video cables attached to the 2 units that were SLI, only to the stand-alone 760GTX.  Officially, FSX is not supported by PhysX.  However, my system seemed to run much smoother with this than without it.  In answer to your question, you can run any GTX card(s) as stand-alone PhysX units.  You could have a Titan for video (overkill in my opinion) and a 650, 560, any GTX card for PhysX.

 

I'm not annoyed, just really dog-tired.  Apologies.

 

I got rid of GEX/UTX as soon as FTX came out.  In my opinion, it's faster.

 

When I had an i7-2770K, my system ran at 23-28fps.  With the 3770K I've been using for about a year, rock solid 28-30fps.  This was in FSX.  Once I start examining the P3D setup, I plan on eliminating the FPS issues people are having in the VC's.  100+ everywhere but the VC.  Then it crashes to around 19-20 FPs is my reading on here. I've only installed it, haven't really ran it yet.

 

Here's the point I was trying to make to the OP.  The OP is worried about his video card.  Video cards help, but my experience is that you can do really well pushing the data as fast as possible through the system. 

Sorry, I think we're saying some of the same things.. OK, I was a little harsh on that post, please accept my apologies. Been working 16 hr days for two weeks with no end in sight...

We are good, dont worry :-)

Overworked will do that to you.....good thing I have a week holliday ;-)

 

 

Here is my mobo. I used an EVGA GTX760 SC for FSX. It was in my last 16x slot. I have often wondered why people get bad framerates because I even got 25+ FPS using AMD cards 2 or 3 years ago. Not sure exactly what I'm doing right, or what others are doing that's different.

Yeah....that is what we need to find out here.

 

 

Having said that, my SLI setup was in slots 1 (x16) and 3 (x16). I assigned them as PhysX units in NCP. I have no idea if they helped. However, when running FSX, I had no video cables attached to the 2 units that were SLI, only to the stand-alone 760GTX. Officially, FSX is not supported by PhysX. However, my system seemed to run much smoother with this than without it.

ok, maybe someone else with more than one GPU could try your physx trick and report.

 

 

In answer to your question, you can run any GTX card(s) as stand-alone PhysX units. You could have a Titan for video (overkill in my opinion) and a 650, 560, any GTX card for PhysX.

Ok, I have an old PC sitting around with a GTX460. I guess I could take the 460 out of there and experiment with that then?!

 

 

 

I got rid of GEX/UTX as soon as FTX came out. In my opinion, it's faster.

Ok, maybe that is why then.

I find GEX/UTX quite a heavy load on the system as well.

One can tune it.....but still, quite heavy.

In my KJFK case another recource hog I suspect is AI. I have installed every thing fresh and have not tested with AI off yet.

I am running default AI (no addon AI) at 45% airlines and 35% general aviation.

What do you have for AI?

default FSX or addon?

and hiw much?

To compare apples with apples we would have to go somewhere where we both have default FSX scenery only. That would be Asia/Australia/Afrika for me.

But you with FTX.....that is worldwide correct?

 

 

 

 

Here's the point I was trying to make to the OP. The OP is worried about his video card. Video cards help, but my experience is that you can do really well pushing the data as fast as possible through the system.

Yes. For this reason I gave FSX its own SSD and bought the fastest RAM I could get my hands on. But in you opinion having two GPUs, one doing physx, would be pushing data faster than one GPU?

 

The only thing that does not rime with this all is that FSX is a mainly CPU dependand simulator. So assuming the CPU is the bottleneck, putting two GPUs should not help.

I really think I need to experiment with adding my old 460 to my system.

 

cheers

You guys mean to try PhysX on FSX? because the game needs to be coded to use the API, and FSX is certainly not

I have a i5 2500 (non K,  3,30 Ghz) - 770gtx  and considering to buy the i7 4790K (i don't overclock).

Will the performance boost be noticeable in FSX (pmdg 737ngx) ? (and will it worth the money, since i have to upgrade the MB also?)

Gerasimos Stamatatos 

I have a i5 2500 (non K,  3,30 Ghz) - 770gtx  and considering to buy the i7 4790K (i don't overclock).

Will the performance boost be noticeable in FSX (pmdg 737ngx) ? (and will it worth the money, since i have to upgrade the MB also?)

Gerasimos Stamatatos 

 

About a 35 - 40% faster. Not bad

WHat's the rest of your specs?

i5 2500

MB MSI H67MA

 

8 GB RAM 1333

CX 600 psu

MIS GTX770 2GB

HDD

WINDOWS 7

 

 And a last question, do i have to reinstall Windows if i change the mb?

 

 

do i have to reinstall Windows if i change the mb?

 

No. You may need to call MS support to reactivate Windows though

i5 2500

MB MSI H67MA

 

8 GB RAM 1333

CX 600 psu

MIS GTX770 2GB

HDD

WINDOWS 7

 

 And a last question, do i have to reinstall Windows if i change the mb?

YES!

 

A new MB needs new drivers!

ofcourse you can just throw the MB in and try to boot from your current HDD that holds your win7 installation....

But you will probably get a lot of "can not find this device, can not find that decice, found a new chipset, found a new LAN controller etc etc" messages, causing total chaos!

 

Certainly not the best way to get a stable running FSX!!

 

 

I do think the performance increase would be good thoug, if you use your hardware the right way!

 

With that I mean that investing more money into FSX is a waste of money if you dont get the basics right.

For example, FSX on the same HDD as Win7 is holding you back a bit.

It is preferred to have FSX on its own "name defragged" HDD or better yet, on its own SSD (does not need name defrag or Ny other type of maintenance).

 

Not as important as the rest, but RAM is often overlooked.

slow RAM will cause a stuttery experience.

Fast memory means high MHz (so not 1333) and low latency (you specified your RAM without the latency and as such we cant say anything about the quality of your RAM).

 

There are probaly a lot more things you could optimize in your system, but it takes time to read and understand it all.

 

What I am trying to say is, that FSX is tricky....if you dont know how to use your hardware correctly....then you might end up dissapointed with an upgraded MB and CPU.

 

You could try to do some more reading and optimizing to see how much more you can tickle out of your current system, because basically you have a system that should run FSX quite well.

By the way, what kind of performance are you getting?

fps?

stutters?

blurry scenery textures?

 

For what it is worth......I was very exited initially about the 4790k as well.

It looks good.

But in the end it is the same as a 4770k but it cools better, allowing a higher (default) clock.

(that is how I understand it at least).

 

So I am not going to get it I guess.

I already have good performance and would only upgrade if there was a 6 core CPU like that available.

Not sure if/when that is comming out.

 

Hope this helps.

You guys mean to try PhysX on FSX? because the game needs to be coded to use the API, and FSX is certainly not

I am not saying Nything because I dont even know what Physx is....but I will Google it now that I am getting curious, lol.

 

Kattz was also saying that FSX does not use Physx, but that when he sets up his multiple GPUs so that Physx is handled by an SLI set of GPUs and FSX is handled by another GPU, that he has better performance.

 

He too said that he does not know why because FSX does not use Physx to begin with.

 

 

So now I am thinking.......maybe the Physx capability of modern GPUs is actually intefering with the old code of FSX?!

And when he moved Physx away from the GPU that runs FSX......that inteference is gone, resulting in better fps?!

 

I guess we could also try by just deinstalling the Nvidia Physx driver and see how FSX performs then?!

I am not saying Nything because I dont even know what Physx is....but I will Google it now that I am getting curious, lol.

 

Kattz was also saying that FSX does not use Physx, but that when he sets up his multiple GPUs so that Physx is handled by an SLI set of GPUs and FSX is handled by another GPU, that he has better performance.

 

He too said that he does not know why because FSX does not use Physx to begin with.

 

 

So now I am thinking.......maybe the Physx capability of modern GPUs is actually intefering with the old code of FSX?!

And when he moved Physx away from the GPU that runs FSX......that inteference is gone, resulting in better fps?!

 

I guess we could also try by just deinstalling the Nvidia Physx driver and see how FSX performs then?!

 

I'm pretty sure it's because of his particular motherboard and how it handles PCIe lanes & bandwidth.

Z68, just like P67, Z87, Z97 only have 16 lanes to the PCIe controller in the CPU. Motherboards with tri-SLI / XFire support come with a NF200 chip that multiplexes the lanes allowing for bandwidth distribution across 3 PCIe slots.

 

Regular PCIE 2.0 boards can only run 1 slot @ x16 or 2 @ x8 x8 PCIe 2.0. Obviously you can't run 3 slots @ x5.33 x5.33 x5.33 so you can only get x8 x4 x4 on 3 slots which is pretty useless in SLI

Boards with the NF200 balance the load across all 3 slots, but they don't have any more total bandwidth than a regular one without a NF200. There are still only 16 lanes in the PCIe controller in the CPU.

 

I'm pretty sure by setting the first two cards to run physics the board is prioritizing bandwidth to the 3rd one hence why he gets better performance, considering there's no PhysX code to run in FSX