Sign in to follow this  
fogboundturtle

X-plane 10 is barely using my GPU (980 TI)

Recommended Posts

I upgraded my card from a GTX 970 to a MSI GTX 980 TI 6GB over the weekend. I wanted to see how far I can push my card. So I was running MSI Burner while cranking up the graphic in X-plane 10. My rig is an i5-4670k and 16GB RAM. Not only does my CPU not bottleneck at all, my GPU usage and power were barely going at 30-40%.  It didn't matter which settings I was cranking up. I verified in the Nvidia CP. My card is setup for maximum performance. This is with an Boeing 777 Wordliner.

 

What the hell is going with X-plane 10 ? Just to verify my sanity. I ran Metro Light in 1440p with everything maxed. I was averaging 85 fps.  So I know it's not my rig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I was under the impression that X-plane, while utilizing more of the GPU than FSX, was still one of those programs that was heavily CPU dependant. Aren't the primary Blade element theory calculations generally all running on the CPU? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct about the CPU being the bottleneck for most people. It´s not the flightmodel, it is actually the geometry of the objects, shadows, reflections, AI traffic, clouds and cars, etc. Your GPU will only be taxed to the max if you actually pick a setting that asks little of the CPU (reduce all of the above settings a lot), and a lot of the GPU (i.e. having a very high resolution with lots of texture VRAM use and very demanding HDR and anti-aliasing settings).

 

I went from a GTX770 to a GTX970 and haven´t noticed even the tiniest bit of framerate improvement on a "typical" setting. BUT I can ramp up the texture resolution and display everything on my 4K monitor now. This caused me to hit the GPU-ceiling on my old card...

 

Also keep in mind that most "performance meters" for the CPU take the total load into account. So if you have 4 cores, and one is firewalled, you would probably only see 25% use. X-Plane does only use the "other cores" for very limited things, like loading scenery in the background or running AI flightmodel calculations. The bulk of X-Plane will only run on one core...

 

Jan


I upgraded my card from a GTX 970 to a MSI GTX 980 TI 6GB over the weekend. I wanted to see how far I can push my card. So I was running MSI Burner while cranking up the graphic in X-plane 10. My rig is an i5-4670k and 16GB RAM. Not only does my CPU not bottleneck at all, my GPU usage and power were barely going at 30-40%.  It didn't matter which settings I was cranking up. I verified in the Nvidia CP. My card is setup for maximum performance. This is with an Boeing 777 Wordliner.

 

What the hell is going with X-plane 10 ? Just to verify my sanity. I ran Metro Light in 1440p with everything maxed. I was averaging 85 fps.  So I know it's not my rig.

 

...and while I understand your bewilderment at the numbers you see - I hope averaging 85fps is not causing too much disappointment in the X-Plane platform for you!? :wink:

 

Jan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct about the CPU being the bottleneck for most people. It´s not the flightmodel, it is actually the geometry of the objects, shadows, reflections, AI traffic, clouds and cars, etc. Your GPU will only be taxed to the max if you actually pick a setting that asks little of the CPU (reduce all of the above settings a lot), and a lot of the GPU (i.e. having a very high resolution with lots of texture VRAM use and very demanding HDR and anti-aliasing settings).

 

I went from a GTX770 to a GTX970 and haven´t noticed even the tiniest bit of framerate improvement on a "typical" setting. BUT I can ramp up the texture resolution and display everything on my 4K monitor now. This caused me to hit the GPU-ceiling on my old card...

 

Also keep in mind that most "performance meters" for the CPU take the total load into account. So if you have 4 cores, and one is firewalled, you would probably only see 25% use. X-Plane does only use the "other cores" for very limited things, like loading scenery in the background or running AI flightmodel calculations. The bulk of X-Plane will only run on one core...

 

Jan

 

...and while I understand your bewilderment at the numbers you see - I hope averaging 85fps is not causing too much disappointment in the X-Plane platform for you!? :wink:

 

Jan

my x-plane framerate is averaging 30 fps. So I'm far from the 85 fps. btw, I was monitoring all the core and none of them were maxed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my x-plane framerate is averaging 30 fps. So I'm far from the 85 fps. btw, I was monitoring all the core and none of them were maxed out.

 

Ah, ok. Thought you said that you "ran Metrolight at 1440p" and got "85fps". Not sure what Metrolight is, of course, thought it was some add-on for XP.

 

X-Plane performance is not something that anyone can diagnose from afar. I am getting the framerate that I think I should be getting. Can I bring it to it´s knees? Sure. Can I make it run at 40+ fps over Manhattan with a visual that makes me drool? Absolutely.

 

Jan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our sims never run as smooth as mainstream RPG/FPS games...  

 

What texture res are you running xp at?  Try extreme I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our sims never run as smooth as mainstream RPG/FPS games...  

 

What texture res are you running xp at?  Try extreme I guess.

 I am on extreme. It's not about smootness, it's about using the GPU to it's capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I am on extreme. It's not about smootness, it's about using the GPU to it's capacity.

In OpenGL that's the Job of the OpenGL driver (by NVidia) Laminar and so on can't even determine where parts of the code will calculated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've got a 980Ti, and I can for sure say that in 1440, with HDR on, turning up AA to the max, turning up shadows to the max, and turning up scenery density to the max (more scenery causing more shadows), I can most definitely indeed max out my GPU.

 

However, I'm generally far more conservative, since I prefer my GPU at a quiet hum, instead of a vacuum cleaner imitation. :wink:

 

But it is indeed possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what the OP is surprised about is that he is not seeing a commensurate jump in FPS as he would expect to seen in almost any other type of software when switching from a lower card to a 980Ti.

 

Of course the reason is that our current Flightsims were designed at a time when most of the "Ooommph" came from the CPU, and they were designed accordingly. In the civilian sector, we really don't have any desktop sims programmed from the ground up to take full advantage of modern hardware, yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you record the FPS and smoothness before you upgraded? I went from a GTX680 to GTX980 and I saw a big jump in FPS and smoothness using the same setting.  You went from GTX970 to GTX980TI, depending on your driver (as other has said) you will not see a big difference.  However, if you find yourself have a better sim experience with the new card, it paid for its price ;-)  I can't afford the TI, so I just drool with envy (LOL)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have "Compress textures to save VRAM" checked or unchecked?  Makes a big difference in VRAM loading.  If your CPU is fast enough, it has virtually no effect on framerates except in very high texture-loading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have "Compress textures to save VRAM" checked or unchecked?  Makes a big difference in VRAM loading.  If your CPU is fast enough, it has virtually no effect on framerates except in very high texture-loading.

Compress textures are checked. I was monitoring CPU and GPU usage and there were no where near a bottleneck. I guess I will have to make a video about it and maybe there is tweak I'm missing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compress textures are checked. I was monitoring CPU and GPU usage and there were no where near a bottleneck. I guess I will have to make a video about it and maybe there is tweak I'm missing here.

 

Post a screenshot of you XP settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my x-plane framerate is averaging 30 fps. So I'm far from the 85 fps. btw, I was monitoring all the core and none of them were maxed out.

 

So now I'm confused - are you only seeing 30 fps and you want faster framerates, and you're confused at how come you're not seeing more?

 

The fact that you are only seeing 30fps sounds to me like you have the framerate locked to 30fps.  This would explain why you aren't seeing greater utilization of your CPU / GPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the actual benefit of more VRAM on your card, was for such as scenery loading and plane texture's...right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the actual benefit of more VRAM on your card, was for such as scenery loading and plane texture's...right?

 

Yeah because depending on the airport I'll push beyond the 4GB I have and then the bus interface activity number (memory swapping I presume) jumps way up and performance dies.  With 6GB I would think he'd be set...aside from cranking up the anti aliasing settings...I find I have to run at 2X max with extended DSFs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah because depending on the airport I'll push beyond the 4GB I have and then the bus interface activity number (memory swapping I presume) jumps way up and performance dies.  With 6GB I would think he'd be set...aside from cranking up the anti aliasing settings...I find I have to run at 2X max with extended DSFs.

 

Fortunate that help is on the way. The upcoming Nvidia pascal series cards are supposed to have a minimum of 16GB of Vram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunate that help is on the way. The upcoming Nvidia pascal series cards are supposed to have a minimum of 16GB of Vram

 

I can't even imagine...and...it's unusual they wouldn't milk it by giving us 2GB at a time over a couple years rather than going straight to 16.  Skeptical but looking forward to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't even imagine...and...it's unusual they wouldn't milk it by giving us 2GB at a time over a couple years rather than going straight to 16.  Skeptical but looking forward to it.

 

I'm thinking because it's an actual die-shrink and the transistor jump that goes with that, coupled with the emerging VR market, and some other uses Nvidia has in mind for this technology.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also recently upgraded from a GTX780 to an Asus GTX980 TI STRIX.

 

I was able to push my rendering settings to 8xSSAA+FXAA and turn on the extended DSF. I am running my texture settings on the 2nd from highest (Very High I think) I am not at my Sim right now. My FPS are typically anywhere from 30 - 60 and that is with complicated aircraft like the FF 767 & JAR A330

 

If I set this too extreme I basically get a slideshow even with my i3570K @ 4.7 and the 980 with 6GB VRAM. It is very easy to use all 6GB on the GPU. I run HD Mesh V3 as well and love my sim the way it currently is.

 

I can post my settings later tonight.

 

Don't focus on the FPS, with this card you should be able to get very nice results

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the opposite effect.  I recently went from a 580 to a 980Ti.  I used the VMax 757 and DD NYC scenry for testing.  With the 580, the slower FPS was obvious.   Now with the 980Ti, the FPS are very fast and smooth.  

 

In P3D the card change gave me about 3 to 5 additional FPS, but without a doubt, the improvement is much more obvious in XP-10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also recently upgraded from a GTX780 to an Asus GTX980 TI STRIX.

 

I was able to push my rendering settings to 8xSSAA+FXAA and turn on the extended DSF. I am running my texture settings on the 2nd from highest (Very High I think) I am not at my Sim right now. My FPS are typically anywhere from 30 - 60 and that is with complicated aircraft like the FF 767 & JAR A330

 

If I set this too extreme I basically get a slideshow even with my i3570K @ 4.7 and the 980 with 6GB VRAM. It is very easy to use all 6GB on the GPU. I run HD Mesh V3 as well and love my sim the way it currently is.

 

I can post my settings later tonight.

 

Don't focus on the FPS, with this card you should be able to get very nice results

 

Richard

 

You forgot the most important thing.... Resolution.

 

Are you at 1080p or 4k on that 42" TV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this