GPU Question - Rob et al...

[rdtv91 73]

Hi Folks, I'll sumarise my situation and my planned solution - any advice whether I am on the right tracks would be awesome.

 

Currently have a GTX970 which is powering 3x 1920x1080 monitors with Nvidia surround (resolution of 5960x1080 - bezel corr)

 

My only issue with this is when flying through cloud where GPU load constantly peaks at 99% which makes overcast impossible to fly near... (99% Gpu usage then brings p3d lagging to near impossible in the ngx - rest of the time it's fine and frames locked all nicely)

My motherboard doesn't support SLI, only crossfire and I am planning for a new Mobo and CPU upgrade to skylake later this year so want to hold off...

My question is if I were to purchase another GTX970 just now, my mobo supports multiple graphics cards - would running another 970 with a monitor running from that solve the problem in terms of gpu performance and therefore p3d performance in cloud?

Some figures:
Stretched P3D over 3 monitors - gpu usage is around 85 - 90%
over 2 monitors is hovering around 65, peaks about 70ish

When on 1 monitor it sits around 50, peaking 60s

 

I understand you can't run surround from multiple graphics cards without SLI in which case I fly the NGX and would it be possible to pull & expand P3D and 'alt-enter' the same way as I do now without any issues and above all would it solve my cloud performance issues

Thanks in advance all!

 

Full setup: i5 4690K overclocked to 4.5 stable, 16GB Ram, GTX970, few SSD's

Jonathon.

[AnkH 2,261]

Some thoughts:

 

1. no, if your mainboard does not support SLI, buying another 970 makes no sense at all.

 

2. Buying another 970 makes no sense atm, as the first Pascal chips are about to be released, presumably called GTX 1070 and GTX 1080. Should be there end of May.

 

3. If you absolutely need more performance as fast as possible, the only thing you can do: sell your 970 and buy a custom 980Ti.

 

That's it, everything else is rather senseless atm. Only other thing that would slightly increase performance: switch to a i7 6700K running also at 4.5GHz.

[TheBoom 31]

Like ankh said above it would quite pointless. Pascal would be the best option now.

 

Some other things to note. What is your memory usage on the 970? The card peaking out at 99% would be alleviated with the addition of another card but it won't do anything for performance if your video memory is being maxed out which is likely the case with running 3 monitors in P3D.

 

The memory from the two cards will not stack and you'll still be stuck with a max of 3.5gb on the first card.

[DylanM 1,069]

Pascal is looking to be a game changer (yes, I know that's terrible...) and should dramatically impact the price of the current high-end crop of cards. If you don't want to go leading edge, you should be able to get a 980 or 980ti for quite the bargain soon...

[Guest]

My question is if I were to purchase another GTX970 just now, my mobo supports multiple graphics cards - would running another 970 with a monitor running from that solve the problem in terms of gpu performance and therefore p3d performance in cloud?

 

No.  Suggest you save your money for a Pascal.  Of course no one knows how it will perform with P3D yet, nVidia is making crazy claims like 10X faster (which is true for "some" operations but not necessarily overall) ... I think a more realistic result would be 2X faster than current 980Ti and Titan X PROVIDED one has the CPU/bandwidth to keep the GPUs working.  It's still a balancing game.

 

I would however expect Cloud FPS hits to be far less, especially for SGSS AA users (this is probably where Pascal will shine regardless of CPU).  Good times ahead on the GPU front, too bad Intel aren't doing anything good on the CPU front, just more cores, less power, lower frequency (exactly what we DON'T need).  No secret, I'm not too enthusiastic about Intel's lack of progress, and now that my Intel EE friend no longer works for Intel and moved to Apple, I've lost my inside contact.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[rdtv91 73]

Thanks guys, going to see what my VRAM usage is when in but I don't think it's that high, will look at that as only ever looked at gpu usage % on gpu Z.

 

I only use internal p3d settings with 4x msaa.

 

Will keep an eye on the next range of Nvidia cards then before splashing any cash shall drop my vram stats this evening when in from work.

 

Appreciate all your input this is what makes this community and simulator so good.

[Michael Moe 495]

I loved my 2 GTX970´s back in the old 3.1 days but lately it has become a nightmare  :wink:

 

But thats just progression i guess.

 

Gladly i can switch to Project Cars and still see some SLI action and getting my pulse down (or up ? ) 

 

Michael Moe

[rdtv91 73]

Well following advice, here's a couple of screenshots when flying through cloud with Nvidia surround from GpuZ, my gfx card has 4gb vram but as we all know there an issue with the 970 when in reality it's 3.5GB Vram...

 

 

[Guest]

 

 

going to see what my VRAM usage is when in but I don't think it's that high

 

This will also depend on add-on used ... for example 5.1 GB VRAM used at DD's NewYork (skip to 12:50 mark, upper left corner has VRAM usage ... 3rd line down).

 

 

So if you run that high a resolution - 5960x1080, I'd recommend a 6GB VRAM or higher graphics card.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[rdtv91 73]

This will also depend on add-on used ... for example 5.1 GB VRAM used at DD's NewYork (skip to 12:50 mark, upper left corner has VRAM usage ... 3rd line down).

 

 

So if you run that high a resolution - 5960x1080, I'd recommend a 6GB VRAM or higher graphics card.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

Yeah I'm swaying towards a GTX980TI now considering your advice and what I've been reading/ looking at today.

 

I posted a few screenshots above of flying into overcast, I don't use much shadow options and no terrain shadows; mainly flying the PMDG stuff and the main thing I want is to be able to have overcast properly with internal P3D settings

[Guest]

My test PC (not my main FS PC) is a single 970GTX 4GB running three 2560 x 1440 monitors (not in surround mode, just expand the window across 3 displays and hit Alt + Enter) and the 970 works well (60 FPS < 3.2GB VRAM) ... BUT, this is with NO add-ons ... as you can see, Add-ons (especially extreme one's like DD New York) can drastically increase VRAM usage.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[rdtv91 73]

Very true - well I've bit the bullet and ordered a gtx980ti hopefully this will do the job with Nvidia surround and the 737ngx

[himmelhorse 1,276]

Hello all,

 

This is very VERY interesting.  I say that, because I am running 6 monitors on 2 x ATI R9 290 VGA cards. with FS2004, WIN7 ultimate 64bit 8gb RAM, i7 2600k unclocked, all my sliders maxed out and getting 50FPS.

 

I am freely admitting that I know very little regarding VAS and Vram and the rest of the technical terms used for P3D and FSX and CTDs are unheard of with my system, but I just know this works and works very well.  

 

 

I have been toying about upgrading to P3D but this has the effect of putting me off the purchase without a major upgrade in hardware.

 

 

What huge steps backwards, regarding the use of multi monitors, have FSX and P3D taken to create these problems. I have purchased FSX and FSX Gold and upgraded hardware 3 times now and have never (I repeat NEVER) .completed a flight using any more than two monitors and even with just two it was a memorable failure. 

 

AND, NO, I am not advocating everyone go back to FS2004 ... for one thing all the new (lovely) aircraft are not being adapted to FS2004 and this was one of the main reasons for my contemplated upgrade.

 

I also have to upgrade my photo as the system has changed, monitor wise and I now have a 40inch 1080p LED tv as an overhead panel, 1 x 60inch 1080p LED tv Main panel (vc cockpit) 2 x 32inch 1080p as external side cockpit views (using triplehead2go for those three monitors)  1 x 22 inch monitor for FMS, Lower CDU, FMS and 1 x 24inch Monitor for the pedestal panel.  All screens 1920x 1080 resolution. I also use Saitek yoke, 2 x throttle quadrants, 1 x trim wheel and of course, the rudder pedals.

 

I simply do not understand why the OP cannot use two VGA monitors (without SLI) and just use them as I do.  There is obviously a reason ... it simply eludes me.

 

For now, and for me, there is very little motivation, other than the new aircraft , to upgrade. Maybe when P3D goes 64bit ... dunno.

 

As I said, all very interesting .... any thoughts

 

Regards to all

 

Tony Chilcott

[Guest]

 

 

I simply do not understand why the OP cannot use two VGA monitors (without SLI) and just use them as I do.  There is obviously a reason ... it simply eludes me.

 

There is no reason ... don't really understand your post?  Toss as many monitors as you like at P3D.  FS2004 doesn't support SLI, so you really don't have much of an option like you would with P3D.

 

VGA???  I think we're a good decade past VGA specs

 

Personally I'm not a fan of using multiple monitors for VC ... I find the bezels distracting.  One single very large 8K monitor is my final destination (hopefully a couple of Pascal GPUs are sufficient).

 

And yes it does sound like your post is very much trying to suggest FS2004 is better at multi-monitor ... but that's ok, you'll come around eventually once you try P3D and yes you will be in danger of wanting to upgrade your hardware if you're unable to control yourself with graphics settings ... you've been warned.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[himmelhorse 1,276]

Rob,

 

Thanks for your input.

 

I probably meant to say GPU in lieu of VGA cards .... I told you I was not a nerd lol.

 

Given my years of trying FSX with multi monitors I would have said that was a fair indication of trying to upgrade from FS2004,

However, I have given up on this temporarily and will remain in limbo with FS2004 until I can afford an hardware upgrade. Hopefully by then P3D will have gone 64bit and be more conducive to the multiple monitor concept that I enjoy. 

 

If nothing else it is something to look forward to,

 

Getting back to the original question though, why is it not advisable to go the two GPU route, SLI or not. Logic tells me that 2 GPU s driving 2 monitors each is more efficient than 3 or more monitors plugged into a single GPU. Obviously SLI makes a world of difference.and I am not talking about SLI at this point. logic tells me this and reality is vastly different.  

 

Again, having travelled this route for years with no success, I agree with what everyone is saying.  I am simply trying to say that I just do not understand why it is so.

 

Thanks again Rob and good luck with your new GPU Jonothon.

 

Tony Chilcott