Will a GeForce GTX 760 run well with the PMDG 777-300ER

[777simmer 117]

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

Better performance.....as in better than when he does not set the first two cards to run Physx.....or.......better as in better than everybody else?

 

Cause he is getting better than everybody else!

I have never before heard of system that never ever drops below 28fps even under a heavy PMDG777 load combined with Fly tampa OMDB.

 

 

I have a Maxiums V Formula board.....z77.....no idea if this also has the NF200!?

but I do know it is 3rd generation....so that also means 16lanes are becomming 32lanes no?

So why is he getting a constant 28+ fps and I am not?

 

 

I also checked out Physx.

It is kind of something like A2A accu sim!

and that works for FSX.

I am pretty sure PMDG uses something similar as the Physx behind temperatures and pressures etc are simulated.

Maybe it is the A2A or PMDG Physx part that is calculated on his two other GPUs?

[dazz 69]

Better performance.....as in better than when he does not set the first two cards to run Physx.....or.......better as in better than everybody else?

 

The bolded part. Actually he would get a small boost (about a 10%) by running FSX on a single card in slot 1, but he uses his SLI for P3D

 

 

 

Cause he is getting better than everybody else!

I have never before heard of system that never ever drops below 28fps even under a heavy PMDG777 load combined with Fly tampa OMDB.

 

Hard to gauge without comparing side by side in equal conditions, but actually your board has twice as much PCIe bandwidth as his (more below)

 

 

 

I have a Maxiums V Formula board.....z77.....no idea if this also has the NF200!?

 

No it doesn't, and you don't want it anyway. Your board can do 3 way SLI / XFire, even if it also has 16 PCIe lanes, yours are PCIe 3.0 (twice the bandwidth)

Your x8 x4 x4 configuration is much faster (2x) than the nf200 advertised x8 x16 x16

Since your PCIe lanes run at PCIe 3.0 speeds, Your x8 x4 x4 is the equivalent to x16 x8 x8 PCIe 2.0, which was a typical configuration in enthusiast platforms befor Ivy Bridge (X58) 

 

 

 

I also checked out Physx.

It is kind of something like A2A accu sim!

and that works for FSX.

I am pretty sure PMDG uses something similar as the Physx behind temperatures and pressures etc are simulated.

Maybe it is the A2A or PMDG Physx part that is calculated on his two other GPUs?

 

PhysX is an SDK. You need to specifically develop code to take advantage of it.  FSX doesn't and it would need a dedicated Nvidia card, it's not even cross-platform (it's actually in the way out, not many games support it anymore for all I know)

[777simmer 117]

Thx for the great info Dazz.....good stuff :-)

 

So I should be getting better performance than he does....and yet.

Although....he is running 4.9Ghz, me "only" 4.4!

 

Like I said before, my Win7 and FSX installation is fairly fresh......I have not experimented much with it yet.

For instance I am still using Nvidia Inspector settings at Vsync - force on.

Although my goal actually is 1/2Vsync, locked at 30fps.

So I have not reduced FFTF yet to boost fps.

Nor have I tried any other tricks.....or even adjustments to FSX settings (AI traffic for example) in an effort to increase fps.

I first wanted to get a smooth and stable setup with basic settings, which I now have I think.

Now comes the fine tuning and seeings how much I can tickle out of it.

 

Maybe Katzz and I can find the time to do a test in an area where we both have the same default FSX scenery and the same settings.

If so we shall let youz know.

 

thx again Dazz

[dazz 69]

So I should be getting better performance than he does....and yet.

 

Well, all of the above PCIe bandwidth stuff would give you a huge advantage if it really was a limiting factor, but it's not (ehem *NickN* ehem)

At least with PMDG planes and other complex addons, it's all about the CPU (and GPU for AA)

 

There may be plenty of reason why you both get different performance obviously.

 

You run your frames limited, maybe he runs unlimited?

Bufferpools=0? 

 

As for sheer CPU speed, he runs 5MHz faster, but your chip is like a 10% faster due to the newer architecture, you also most likely run faster RAM (I doubt his 32GB are much faster than 1600MHz) so you should get maybe a 5-8% edge there.

 

EDIT: I see now you're running a 3770k too

 

Small differences all in all, settings and addons are probably going to make most of the difference.

 

If you added BP=0 and set your frames to unlimited you'd probably get a huge FPS boost. Not saying you should do it, what I mean is you can't just compare your FPS figure with someone else's based solely on computer specs. Nothing you didn't know already

[Kattz 132]

Well, all of the above PCIe bandwidth stuff would give you a huge advantage if it really was a limiting factor, but it's not (ehem *NickN* ehem)

At least with PMDG planes and other complex addons, it's all about the CPU (and GPU for AA)

 

There may be plenty of reason why you both get different performance obviously.

 

You run your frames limited, maybe he runs unlimited?

Bufferpools=0? 

 

As for sheer CPU speed, he runs 5MHz faster, but your chip is like a 10% faster due to the newer architecture, you also most likely run faster RAM (I doubt his 32GB are much faster than 1600MHz) so you should get maybe a 5-8% edge there.

 

EDIT: I see now you're running a 3770k too

 

Small differences all in all, settings and addons are probably going to make most of the difference.

 

If you added BP=0 and set your frames to unlimited you'd probably get a huge FPS boost. Not saying you should do it, what I mean is you can't just compare your FPS figure with someone else's based solely on computer specs. Nothing you didn't know already

 

Wow, Dazz, I humbly bow before your knowledge. 

 

I was using bufferpools.

 

I would love to place my previous configuration back in place just to test all of this and show the results.  However, I no longer have anything FSX related installed as of a week ago.  My entire system has been taken down including the OS and I've reinstalled everything freshly in preparation for P3D.

 

@777Simmer -

 

I use TrackIR, PFPX, EFB, GSX, AES, ASN, REX TD, Ultimate Traffic 2, RC4, CDU, EFIS, and MCP hardware, FTX Global, Vector, and mesh, and my JFK is not stock.  I think ImagineSim JFK 2.0...  I have very few stock FSX airports other then GA fields.  Anything that I was flying the NGX or T7 out of has been replaced with AFCAD Freeware or Pay add-ons.  Traffic was set to 90% air, 10% ground, and 2% water/boat.  Airport traffic was set to 50%.

 

I did try to go back and sort through my archived files for a copy of my old fsx.cfg, but no luck.  I was going to post that here.

 

One of the biggest boosts to my system was when I dropped in the IB bios update from ASUS.

[777simmer 117]

No Bufferpools in use here yet.

 

That comes as soon as I have time to experiment.....no idea when that is :-(

 

So yes....I still have room for improvement (or not, that remains to be seen).

 

But next SP1 will be around and I am sure that will need months (at the rate I am going) of fiddeling and time to understand.......and thus less time to experiment.

Nothing you didn't know already

Yes :-) and thx.....:-) I like to think I am pretty well informed about FSX and hardware requirement myself.

But it is just....how shall I call it.....

"copy/paste knowledge" sounds like a good term, lol.

 

So it never hurts to get a second opinion, or to talk to others who have a deeper more fundamental understanding of things.

To see how they think things work and how things could be improved.

 

So thx again...and hopefully if we have more hardware discussion, they will all be positive and open minded :-)

[dazz 69]

 

 

Wow, Dazz, I humbly bow before your knowledge

 

 

But it is just....how shall I call it.....
"copy/paste knowledge" sounds like a good term, lol.

So it never hurts to get a second opinion, or to talk to others who have a deeper more fundamental understanding of things.

 

There really isn't anything special about my knowledge guys. I also get most of my info from external sources, and personally I think it's much better to have more than one source. Google covers everything if you take the time to look it up. But not being afraid of putting things to the test and challenging conventional wisdom is important too. More often than not you don't simply need to take someone else's word for something when you can test it yourself.

 

Anyway, great talk Kevin and Rob, and enjoy your killer rigs, both are top notch

[hsung 3]

I also test and borrow FSX tweaks from a few sources, and found what works best on my hardware and config.  A couple of good things I found are:

 

1. Use nVidia Inspector to set 2xSGS for AA and 1/2 refresh rate for Vertical Sync.

 

2. Limit frame rates to 30 in FSX.  I found setting  FR to Unlimited creates higher frame rates in external view, it creates a huge gap when switching into PMDG 777's VC (and vice versa) for my system to adjust.

 

I also recently upgrade my system to an i5 4690 and Gigabyte's GTX760OC 4GB.  Previously, when running an i7 Sandy Bridge with a GTX260, the GPU was running hotter than the CPU when running FSX.  Now, the GTX760 runs 25 celcius cooler than the CPU despite running at higher textures and graphics related FSX settings.  Hence, I agree FSX is more CPU intensive relative to the GPU when compared to newer games.

 

The main difference between the i5 and i7 is the latter has an extra thread in each CPU core which you get some advantage when the program is designed for hyperthreading, except not for FSX.

[Boeing or not going 578]

 

The main difference between the i5 and i7 is the latter has an extra thread in each CPU core which you get some advantage when the program is designed for hyperthreading, except not for FSX.

 

FSX does use hyperthreading after sp2/acceleration. Also you can adjust what cores are in use with the affinity mask tweak.