Don't mean to be rude but 22 FPS with a 4.8Ghz and a Titan...WoW, that is depressing.

 

Not rude, just not accurate and incomplete ... but I suspect you know that.

 

Cheers, Rob.

I don't know how or why, but I'm running Prepar3d v2.4 on an i5 2500k, NVidia 6600ti GTX, 6gb ram and with most sliders over to the right, averaging 50-60fps with a very smooth performance along with sharp graphics. This system is about 3 years old now and I feel I should upgrade but reading various posts I wonder if I would see much benefit. I would consider a cpu, gpu change and a 4k monitor but it sounds like a lot of money for a small gain.

 

Seems you are happy with what you've got so I wouldn't spend a dime on upgrades if were you. I really wonder though how you got this done because with my old PC (similar to yours) P3D was struggling and on my brand new PC it still is. You must be very lucky.

I don't know how or why, but I'm running Prepar3d v2.4 on an i5 2500k, NVidia 6600ti GTX, 6gb ram and with most sliders over to the right, averaging 50-60fps with a very smooth performance along with sharp graphics

 

I get about 70/80 FPS on the Chereoke......... but then I add Global + vector + europe + UK And Scotland Region + Southampton Airport + Rex + ASN + FStramps and all these goodies = 27ish FPS.

 

So 27 FPS = Happy Poppet.

CPU clock doesn't matter much on P3D, but your GPU and GDDR matters, because it's 32bit, when it becomes to 64bit, it will increase a lot, because will use the full power and we can expect, or should very powerful graphics

 

Just a comparison, what we see on P3D graphics can be compared to games released in 2002 - 2004

 

I hope with 64 bits release Flight Sim can be compared with the new generation.

 

Engines are very powerful, LM can use scenario engines from 3rd, like Unity, Unreal etc because what the companies use for modelling still the same.

 

 

CPU clock doesn't matter much on P3D, but your GPU and GDDR matters, because it's 32bit, when it becomes to 64bit, it will increase a lot, because will use the full power and we can expect, or should very powerful graphics



Just a comparison, what we see on P3D graphics can be compared to games released in 2002 - 2004



I hope with 64 bits release Flight Sim can be compared with the new generation.



Engines are very powerful, LM can use scenario engines from 3rd, like Unity, Unreal etc because what the companies use for modelling still the same.

 

Not often a post comes along where every statement is absolutley wrong, but you win the prize today with that one.

Hahahaha that guy make my day 

I am 100% P3d now....I will installed all updates a week or so after they are released.

If LM asks registered users to put up a bit of money when 3.0 comes out I'll be right there with the cash.

 

After years dealing with MS and their "Our R/C is everyone else's Beta" business model LM is a joy!

 

I am grateful LM has allowed Rob to keep us as informed....much much more open than MS ever was or ever will be.

 

FaxCap

 

 

Not often a post comes along where every statement is absolutley wrong, but you win the prize today with that one.

 

+1

Don't mean to be rude but 22 FPS with a 4.8Ghz and a Titan...WoW, that is depressing.

Not really. It just shows that when one uses a lot of add-ons and cranks up the IQ settings, P3d becomes CPU limited. Even an OC won't fix that, only a new generation of CPUs will.

Not really. It just shows that when one uses a lot of add-ons and cranks up the IQ settings, P3d becomes CPU limited. Even an OC won't fix that, only a new generation of CPUs will.

 

I think Carlos agree with above but he still think its depressing.

Michael

Not really. It just shows that when one uses a lot of add-ons and cranks up the IQ settings, P3d becomes CPU limited. Even an OC won't fix that, only a new generation of CPUs will.

 

Wrong. Only DirectX12 and 64 bit coding will resolve that. You will have still have bottleneck from the CPU waiting for the GPU because of the way draw calls are made in DirectX 11.

Wrong. Only DirectX12 and 64 bit coding will resolve that. You will have still have bottleneck from the CPU waiting for the GPU because of the way draw calls are made in DirectX 11.

Who knows exactly how much DX12 will improve performance? I never believe nVidia's hype until I see that its "next big thing" is actually available and has been benchmarked. 64 bit coding will have little or no impact on frame rates. It will allow > 4 GB VAS usage and hence lessen OOMs substantially. The real problem with P3d is that single core CPU speeds aren't fast enough to keep track of all the computations that are assigned to the P3d main thread. Push the sim hard enough and Core 0 will max out at a constant 100%. If your setup doesn't do that, then you are quite lucky.

Who knows exactly how much DX12 will improve performance? I never believe nVidia's hype until I see that its "next big thing" is actually available and has been benchmarked. 64 bit coding will have little or no impact on frame rates. It will allow > 4 GB VAS usage and hence lessen OOMs substantially. The real problem with P3d is that single core CPU speeds aren't fast enough to keep track of all the computations that are assigned to the P3d main thread. Push the GPU hard enough and Core 0 will max out at a constant 100%. If your setup doesn't do that, then you are quite lucky.

 

I suggest you read more about Mantle and DX12. One of the main advantage is actually alleviate CPU bottleneck due to single threaded call to the DirectX API. It will have a great impact on flight simulator that requires an high numbers of draw calls.  64 bits won't impact frame but it will impact overall stability issue. It's a combination of both that will bring P3D to the next level.

 

You have to add on top of that a more modern engine that will take advantage of modern GPU. If you look at X-plane 10. My CPU is at ~ 35-40% usage while my GPU is closer to 90%. +.  The Microsoft ESP engine was design for how today's GPU are design.  You would see significant improvement on lighting per example.

I've already read a lot about DX12. I am not convinced until I see it being used by P3d. When is that going to be, BTW?

 

As to your CPU usage, that's what pretty much everyone sees with P3d. That's the usage of all your cores combined. The main thread runs on core zero and is generally running at 80 to 100%. The other cores are busy loading scenery textures and mostly twiddling their silicon thumbs.

 

Take a look at individual CPU cores while P3d is running and get back to me. Also, if you max out your GPU at 99%, the load on core 0 will drop down, because the GPU is now the bottleneck.

 

There is no viable solution to the bottleneck issue in P3d except concomitantly faster CPUs and GPUs.

That's P3D in it's current state. It will not be an easy transition. There is a few mantle game out on the market already including the popular BF4. Take a loo at the following numbers ran by anandtech and tomshardware

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7728/battlefield-4-mantle-preview

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-mantle-performance-benchmark,3860-8.html

 

This was done during the preview period and more patches has been done since then. At the time of the benchmarks, it was a 7-10%. Its not a big deal but this is just one of the first program that really took advantage of the Mantle API. You have to think it's going in the right direction. DX12 will take over Mantle and leave it in the dark. Once gaming engine will be re-written to take advantage of multithreading operation with the GPU, I think you will see a more than 10% gain overall. You will see less CPU bottleneck and more GPU bottleneck which is what you want.