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

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

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.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

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? 

[Janov 2,383]

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

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

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.

[Janov 2,383]

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

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

It's Metro : Last light the game.

[ryanbatc 12,813]

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

 

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

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

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.

[Longranger 148]

 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.

[Jimmy RFR 406]

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.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

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.

[Anxu00 176]

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)

[alpilotx 505]

Well, I think you do not need to make up your own theory, when Ben Supnik (one of the main XP devs) has written a lot about this topic. You might start with this big write up:

• http://developer.x-plane.com/?article=calculating-rendering-load

Or just search his blog for relevant keywords ... for example try this:

• http://developer.x-plane.com/?s=limited+cpu+gpu

[mdavis 10]

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.

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

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.