Just bought the 777 pmdg and im getting 18-20 fps anywher i go. I got a i7 4790k(with turbo boost) and a gtx 660. Do graphics cards matter when it comes to more demanding aircraft? Cuz the iris warthog also drops a couple frames, as do captain sim, and the phenom carenado. on the pmdg website they recommend 700 series. But everybody in the flight community says graphics cards dont matter past a certain point so whats the deal why would they recommend it if it doesnt matter, i dont wana buy a 780 and still be the same. Can someone please answer this

gpu does matter , especially if you are running decent AA and AF levels,with sgss transparency sampling etc.

 

I don't have the 777 but i have the ngx and I can just about keep fps in the 25-30 range with resonable settings.

 

Gpu is a gtx 770 with 4xS AA, 16x AF, 2xSGSS sampling. Resolution is 2560x1440

 

Cup is 2600k at 4.6 over clock.

 

If you are getting a replacement, 780 would not make sense at this point. Either the 970 or 980 would be better options.

The 970 is already faster than the 780 anyway.

This is an automatic message.

 

This topic has been moved from "MS FSX Forum" to "Monitors, Video Cards and Drivers". This move has been done for a number of possible reasons.

• The most likely reason is that the post was off topic.
• The topic could also have contained images or a video that were not appropriate to the original forum it was posted in.
• The images might not have been "illustrative" or "explanatory" in nature.
• The topic could have been moved because we deemed it to be more appropriately placed elsewhere.

Please ensure that your posts are "on topic" and contain illustrative images or videos as appropriate. Do not post videos or images just for entertainment purposes anywhere but in the screen shot or video forums. See our image posting rules here.

 

Members who continue to post off topic posts can be denied entry to specific forums in order to reduce and remove the practice. Your cooperation is appreciated.

The GPU matters more with more intensive 3D settings like that with intensive VC's, it is rapidly becoming very important to FSX as developers push the boundaries further. We also have CPU's today that are extremely capable when overclocked and more often than not are being held back by the GPU. The VRAM size is not important and borders on irrelevant past 2GB in FSX (except at ridiculous resolutions) but the speed at which things are transferred to VRAM is extremely important. The GPU clock is also important but nothing will see performance gains more than a greatly increased memory clock speed or bus width.

 

To explain further and for comparison purposes you need to first get your data rate - Take the GPU memory clock, (eg 6200MHz), multiply that by the bus width, (eg 256bit) so that gives 6200*256, then divide by 8 to convert bits to bytes. The resulting number is the amount of bytes your GPU can transfer into memory per second, so converting the previous number from bytes to GB gives here 198GB/s. You essentially want this number to be as high as possible either by having a wider bus width or higher memory clock. Usually the bus width is the best and safest method of multiplying your data rate as overclocking too much can be dangerous and volatile. The most expensive GPU's will generally have both huge memory clocks and bus width's (TITAN-Z is 7000*756/8 = 661GB/s!!!!)

 

Cheaper GPU's often have smaller bit rates, so imagine having a 128bit bus width instead of 256, that halves the amount of data your GPU can transfer into VRAM. The GPU clock does not matter to a huge degree because FSX is not graphically that intensive but it is very VRAM intensive which is the most important number here.

 

The GPU clock is not quite as important in FSX because FSX compared to today's games is very primitive. The latest GPU's are equipped to understand the latest shader model, direct X versions etc which FSX does not use. FSX is still however very memory intensive but there is very little post-processing such as water, reflections, shadows etc which justify a huge GPU clock.

The GPU matters more with more intensive 3D settings like that with intensive VC's, it is rapidly becoming very important to FSX as developers push the boundaries further. We also have CPU's today that are extremely capable when overclocked and more often than not are being held back by the GPU. The VRAM size is not important and borders on irrelevant past 2GB in FSX (except at ridiculous resolutions) but the speed at which things are transferred to VRAM is extremely important. The GPU clock is also important but nothing will see performance gains more than a greatly increased memory clock speed or bus width.

 

To explain further and for comparison purposes you need to first get your data rate - Take the GPU memory clock, (eg 6200MHz), multiply that by the bus width, (eg 256bit) so that gives 6200*256, then divide by 8 to convert bits to bytes. The resulting number is the amount of bytes your GPU can transfer into memory per second, so converting the previous number from bytes to GB gives here 198GB/s. You essentially want this number to be as high as possible either by having a wider bus width or higher memory clock. Usually the bus width is the best and safest method of multiplying your data rate as overclocking too much can be dangerous and volatile. The most expensive GPU's will generally have both huge memory clocks and bus width's (TITAN-Z is 7000*756/8 = 661GB/s!!!!)

 

Cheaper GPU's often have smaller bit rates, so imagine having a 128bit bus width instead of 256, that halves the amount of data your GPU can transfer into VRAM. The GPU clock does not matter to a huge degree because FSX is not graphically that intensive but it is very VRAM intensive which is the most important number here.

 

The GPU clock is not quite as important in FSX because FSX compared to today's games is very primitive. The latest GPU's are equipped to understand the latest shader model, direct X versions etc which FSX does not use. FSX is still however very memory intensive but there is very little post-processing such as water, reflections, shadows etc which justify a huge GPU clock.

Thanks for the explanation but do they matter in more intesive aircraft?

Thanks for the explanation but do they matter in more intesive aircraft?

 

You'll get all sort of contradicting input on this topic, but no one but you can tell you what's your limiting factor.

 

If you check your CPU usage and one of the cores is maxed out, you're CPU limited

If you check your GPU usage and it's nowhere near 100%, you're CPU limited.

 

Of course there's different scenarios to test. In big airports with tons of traffic and a complex aircraft like the PMDG T7, you're most likely going to be CPU limited unless you run more antialiasing than your GPU can handle.

At FL400 there's less for the CPU to do and you may be GPU limited, but at a high frame rate 

 

Run the test in the conditions you're getting the lowest performance

You'll get all sort of contradicting input on this topic, but no one but you can tell you what's your limiting factor.

 

If you check your CPU usage and one of the cores is maxed out, you're CPU limited

If you check your GPU usage and it's nowhere near 100%, you're CPU limited.

 

Of course there's different scenarios to test. In big airports with tons of traffic and a complex aircraft like the PMDG T7, you're most likely going to be CPU limited unless you run more antialiasing than your GPU can handle.

At FL400 there's less for the CPU to do and you may be GPU limited, but at a high frame rate

 

Run the test in the conditions you're getting the lowest performance

i dont understand how i can be cpu limited i got an i7 4790k

i dont understand how i can be cpu limited i got an i7 4790k

 

Simply because FSX is very CPU intensive. Did you do the test?

i dont understand how i can be cpu limited i got an i7 4790k

i mean the cpu is always gonna run at max with fsx

i mean the cpu is always gonna run at max with fsx

 

Not always. If you set your antialiasing to something your GPU can't handle, the GPU will bottleneck the CPU

But typically, yes. Actually ONE core typically runs maxed out in FSX

Not always. If you set your antialiasing to something your GPU can't handle, the GPU will bottleneck the CPU

But typically, yes. Actually ONE core typically runs maxed out in FSX

does fsx use all four cores or what?

There isn't a CPU publicly available that is up to snuff  :ph34r:

does fsx use all four cores or what?

 

Sort of. It uses one core for the main thread, the one that is usually maxed out, then the rest for texture & terrain loading and other stuff, but it doesn't take advantage of the extra cores fully.