Hey Guys -

 

I use FSX want to go to a three monitor setup with a 4790K overclocked to 4.5Ghz. What is the minimum videocard for such a setup to get good frame-rates without significant loss? Nvidia 960, 970, 980, or Titan X. I understand that FSX is primarily CPU bound and don't want to get too big of a card for the job.

 

Thanks,

 

RH

FSX is CPU bound but the 3 monitors are going to need a good GPU. Get the best you can afford but skip the 960.

I'd be willing to purchase a Titan X but not if it is considered overkill. I am trying to get the feeling of how each of these cards performs in a three monitor setup with an i7 4790K @4.5Ghz. I guess from what you are saying, a 970 may work.

 

My goal would be never dropping below 15 FPS in any given scenario in FSX at the highest settings with the most complex add-ons available for FSX. Would my 4790k running at 4.5Ghz pushing a GTX 970 do that for me running 3 1080p monitors?

 

Thanks for any info!

 

RH

I am running P3D on a 6700K system with a GTX980Ti with fairly high display settings. Planning to get a second card soon for SLI. The 6700K runs at 4.6 GHz.

 

Using 3 55" Samsung TV's at 1920 x 1080 with 3 separate windows (45 degr left, front, 45 degr right) I am getting 15 - 30 FPS (limited to 30), even 15 is still quite fluid for ground operations. I switched to P3D because I could not get this in FSX.

 

I am very happy with this setup, although of course I keep looking at the big 4K screens....

What kind of FPS were you getting with FSX? I may just go with a regular GTX 980 as its power requirements are only 500w build around an i7 computer. Any other recommendations?

 

Thanks,

 

RH 

RH

 

sorry, I did not test FSX on this (new) system.

 

I know I tried the same setup (3 separate windows) on my old FSX system with a I7 980X and a GTX 670 and it became a slide show. In the end I went to wideview but  was never really happy fiddling around with the setup on the slave.

 

As far as processors go, I like the I7 6700k running on an Asus mobo, overclock was very easy.

Ive tried it with an I7 4770K @ 4.5Ghz and a GTX980 and I reckon I probably lost about 5fps on average, regularly dropping below 20fps. I use REX 4 with 4096 textures which I forgot to lower though. I also use the complete Orbx suite with specific add-ons for Ireland, UK and the West coast Us ones.

Wasn't crazy about the setup either, mind you I wasn't using identical monitors which I've heard is pretty important. I'm currently using using just the one 24" for VC and another 24" for 2d panels, checklists, etc. Hoping to upgrade my main monitor to a 32".

Hope this helps.

Thanks guys for the responses.

 

I guess when you say you lost about 5 frames, that would be when compared to the performance on one monitor (three vs. one). So, I guess with a Titan X under similar conditions, I could not expect more than about a 30 percent increase in FPS vs. the 980 - so from about 20 with the 980 to about 26 with the Titan X.

 

RH

 

 

So, I guess with a Titan X under similar conditions, I could not expect more than about a 30 percent increase in FPS vs. the 980 - so from about 20 with the 980 to about 26 with the Titan X.

If I had that kind of money to spend on components, I would definitely do a bit of research into Skylake CPUs. For about £465 you can get an i7 6700k and motherboard on an English gaming hardware site. I just think for such a cpu bound game a Titan X is overkill. Most users here would probably say anything above a GTX 970 is overkill. The new Skylake architecture may not be producing faster speeds in simple clock cycles, but it far more efficient, and uses the 14nm process allowing for more features and super-fast cache memory to communicate directly with the core cpu.

Just a thought.....

I did a lot of research before picking up the 4790K, and there is very little difference in performance between the two, some benchmarks even supporting the 4790K beating out the 6700K. The only reason I would consider a Titan X is because I want to be able to drive three monitors. If I were just interested in running one monitor, I would definitely just pick up a 970. I may just get a regular 980GTX to run three monitors. I think if I can just keep my framerates above 15, I will be ok. Thanks!

 

RH

 

 

I did a lot of research before picking up the 4790K, and there is very little difference in performance between the two, some benchmarks even supporting the 4790K beating out the 6700K

Interesting to hear that. Good to hear that from someone who's done their research. Even if the 980GTX doesn't do the job, you can always add a second cheaper card for one of the monitors and still pay a lot less that you would for a Titan X. Best of luck either way Robbie!

Thanks for your input! There's not a lot of info about the performance of various cards in a three monitor setup as there is for CPUs in general. So, this is my research, and unfortunately, info is limited, but again, thanks! My motherboard only has one slot for a videocard, so it would have to be one card.

RH

Probably a moot point but you'll need at least 3Gb VRAM on it, I expect you'll have a minimum of 4Gb.

Looks like I will have to choose between a GTX 970 and 980 since a Titan X or 980 TI won't fit in my case. Both (970 and 980) have 4Gb of VRAM. I just want to know what other features of a Video card will help run FSX or the Steam edition with better frame rates and smoothness when running a 4790K at 4.5 to 4.7 Ghz when running a three monitor 1080p setup.

 

Another question I have is how much difference in terms of frame rates and smoothness will I see in the above scenario between the 970 and 980. Obviously, the 970 would be a better option since it uses less power (not really an issue) and that it is less expensive.

 

Thanks,

 

RH