GTX 1070 performance....

[ErichB 3,643]

The CPU usage is closely tied to only one core of the CPU.. so 33% does not really indicate anything.

 

The main core could be at 100% and the other three cores at 10% for an average of 33%.

 

That makes sense, but I still believe my GPU is bottle-necking my current setup.  I'll check the individual cure usage

[TechguyMaxC 516]

Borrowed from another thread: https://www.youtube....h?v=myDYnofz_JE. It would seem that there's very little difference between the Founders Edition 1080 and a factory overclocked 980ti - the 1070 will perform worse than this. Wait for an OEM version of the 1070 and see how that compares.

 

 

1) your link is broken

2) you're wrong: 1080 is on average 22.6% faster than 980 Ti across 3 resolutions (1080p, 1440p, & 4k) after overclocking both cards (980 Ti overclocks by a higher percentage than 1080 does on average, so if you don't overclock the 1080 is close to 35% faster than a stock 980 Ti) and 1070 and 980 Ti are basically tied (1070 = 0.7% faster averaged across the same 3 resolutions)

[longrangecruise 57]

I sold my previous rig and got a 6700k and an ASUS 1070 Strix. My FPS are:

 

VC: Around 27-35 fps on the ground in the PMDG T7 with FSDT addon airports and around 40-55 in the air.

In spot vew it's 55 on the ground and 100 plus in the air.

 

I am running the Skylake @ 4.4, HT on, I am using a1080p monitor, AS16 plus ASCA, Orbx Global plus Vector and P3D very high settings (all at 3/4 or full except shadow quality, water quality, reflections and no ai traffic), no tweaks in the CFG, NVI 2x SGSS.

 

When monitoring my new setup I noticed that especially on the ground at add-on airports (where I would be happy with a few more FPS) my GPU usage is only around 33%.

Is that normal?

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

That simply means that at that moment, the CPU/RAM/motherboard is the limiting factor (ie not the GPU).

 

Is that normal, sure  B)

[longrangecruise 57]

That simply means that at that moment, the CPU/RAM/motherboard is the limiting factor (ie not the GPU).

Thanks Bert, I thought so, too. No need to change to a 1080 hence.

[Patriot3810 182]

i bought a gtx 1070 FE on newegg for 429.00, it's slightly faster than the 980ti i have, i put my 980ti in my son's gaming pc and i see no difference in performance, i would buy the 1070 personally to stay with the current generation and it has 8gb of vram instead of 6 gb.

[odourboy 1,289]

Curious what factors result in high vram utilizion as I don't seem to ever exceed 3g (GTX980) even using a 4K monitor?

[swiesma 625]

In my experience the faster cards like the 1070 and 1080 really shine with higher resolutions and better AA settings (especially in extreme overcast situations).

My 1080 is on its way and I will post some results for 4K after installing it.

 

I think at smaller resolutions like 1080p or below, the 1070 or 980ti are more then enough. Even my 970 performes extremely good here.

 

Will get back in 1 or 2 days ;-) Depending on DHL...

[richie894 45]

Personally, I would say it depends on how much money you want to spend..

 

The GTX970 is a great card, if you do not need the "top of the line"..

 

The GTX1070 is brand new - and more money

I have a 970 and have been noticing that according to Nvidia Inspector Tools my GPU is running as high as 95+% when in the air with p3d. And that is with Aerosoft Airbus (not PMDG) and high altitude with AS16 and REX. I am thinking of switching up to a 1070, as I think the 3.5gb to 8gb jump should make some difference and lower the load on the graphics card.

[Luke 782]

 

 

I think the 3.5gb to 8gb jump should make some difference and lower the load on the graphics card.

 

The switch to a Pascal GPU will make the difference. The RAM? Not really.

 

Cheers!
 

Luke

[swiesma 625]

I have a 970 and have been noticing that according to Nvidia Inspector Tools my GPU is running as high as 95+% when in the air with p3d. And that is with Aerosoft Airbus (not PMDG) and high altitude with AS16 and REX. I am thinking of switching up to a 1070, as I think the 3.5gb to 8gb jump should make some difference and lower the load on the graphics card.

 

I also switched from a 970 to the 1080 and I saw a good leap forward in FPS.

But I am using 4K which is more stress for the GPU.

I think you won't be disappointed with the 1070!

[neymarJR 0]

i think i keep my gtx 980 TI

[mdata 46]

Hi,

 

I just built a new system for P3Dv3 based on the Asus Z170-A, an i7-6700K and the Palit GTX 1070 Super Jetstream. No overclocking (except the higher clock rates the Super Jetstream comes with out of the box), since besides performance I am looking very much for silence too.

 

At a display resolution of 1900x1200 with the CS 777 on the ground at fsdreamteams' PHNL I get framerates between 40 and 60 with highres textures enabled and detail settings at ~75% (no ground shadows), weather is provided by FSGW, cloud textures from REX TD w/soft clouds at 1024bit.

 

I am more than happy with the build and the GTX 1070 - even if the case is open I do hear only a small whisper from the 1070s' fans and the performance is absolutely fantastic. For a new build I can absolutely recommend this card - if upgrading from a GTX 980 however, I would say it's a lot of money for the small performance gain. On the other hand, as others' stated, the new Pascal architecture is more future prove and much more energy efficient.

Cheers

Frank

[Zuendholz 50]

I have the new 1070 and the performance in P3D is amazing. I moved from a 670 and the difference is great.

[richie894 45]

i think i keep my gtx 980 TI

I did a lot of research and from what I saw the 1070 and 980ti are almost identical in performance. Although the 1070 slightly edged the 980ti in texture loading.

 

I believe a 980ti is currently more than adequate if you are just flight simming. But as the price is the same, for someone who has a lesser card the newer pascal 1070 is probably the way to go.

 

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html