Recommended Posts

Hey guys

 

This is my first post, so my deepest apologies if it's in the wrong place, or I've made a mistake somewhere.

 

I'm here to ask about the RX 480 vs the GTX 1060 (based on its reported specs), because I have a couple of questions. I'm running on a fairly tight budget, and currently run an i5 4690k and a GTX 760, and I'm looking to upgrade my graphics card, seeing as, from what I've head, developments in GPUs between versions is much greater than that between version of CPUs. Of course, my main goal here is to see the greatest increase generally in FPS in my P3D installation, coupled hopefully with higher settings. My questions are as follows:

  1. How important is the GPU in P3D? My understanding for FSX was that it was less important than the CPU, but I think that's different in P3D
  2. Seeing as the 1060 has 6GB of VRAM compared to the 480's 8GB, is that an instant advantage to the 480? Is the amount of VRAM important to P3D, or is it more to do with clock-speeds? Initial bench-markings show the 1060 doing better, even with less VRAM.
  3. If I were to upgrade, would it at all bottleneck my machine due to the older CPU?

I would really appreciate some input, especially from anyone running the 480, as I really want to experience improved performance (currently I get around 15-30fps at 1080 with graphics I deem 'acceptable'). I understand that the 1060 isn't out yet, so this is largely speculation, but I think it would be useful to have some starting ideas based off previous knowledge people have. Hopefully some more detailed answers will come around when the 1060 is released and people begin using it. 

Share this post


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

Couple of thoughts..

 

Since you can fly P3D just fine with 2 GB of VRAM, the debate about 6 vs 8 seems somewhat pointless, at least for P3D.

 

The most common GPU around here is the nvidia line, so going to AMD just to chase some specs or save some dollars would be a move I would consider carefully before making the leap.

 

I'm not sure that having a faster GPU would in any way detract from P3D performance.. yes, the CPU may well be the bottleneck, but it probably is that already most of the time.

 

I would wait to hear from real 1060 users... the big question in my mind, is how it compares to the 1070..

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given you own the i5 4690k I think you can OC it with an additional 800Mhz up to 1Ghz. That will result in a solid 4.2 to 4.5Ghz frequency and is more then capable of handling P3D. I'm at an Nvidia GTX 970 with 4 displays and manage a solid 30fps locked i the air and around 25fps on the ground at heavy airports with clouds and AI aircraft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you use multi monitors than you will need more VRAM.

With 3 monitors and detailed settings on my pc It sometimes uses up to 4.5-5 Gb VRAM.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Since you can fly P3D just fine with 2 GB of VRAM, the debate about 6 vs 8 seems somewhat pointless, at least for P3D.

 

I guess what I want to know is would the 8GB perform better than 6. I want to be able to play on higher settings at a stable FPS, so I was wondering if VRAM is a player, or if it's other aspects of the GPU

 

 

 


I would wait to hear from real 1060 users... the big question in my mind, is how it compares to the 1070..

 

I agree. The main motive for this whole idea of an upgrade was watching P3D livestreamers rave about the significant performance increase they experienced with the upgrade from a 980 to a 1080, leading to me becoming interested.

 

 

Given you own the i5 4690k I think you can OC it with an additional 800Mhz up to 1Ghz

 

I already run my i5 at 4.2GHz  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess what I want to know is would the 8GB perform better than 6. I want to be able to play on higher settings at a stable FPS, so I was wondering if VRAM is a player, or if it's other aspects of the GPU

 

 

More VRAM will not give you better performance, in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just moved from 780 (3G) to 1070 (8G) some days ago and it makes a big difference in terms of AA settings. The 780 was to weak for my also new 3440x1440 screen. Now I am able to run P3D with full MSAA (4x-8x) and/or SGSS (4x). Great experience in heavy weather situations. This was not possible with GTX 780.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

Simple answer, because ;) 

 

As of my experience P3D/FSX likes intel/nVidia more than ATI/AMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple answer, because ;) 

 

As of my experience P3D/FSX likes intel/nVidia more than ATI/AMD.

Yes i know that.. Every tweak or tutorial is done with Nvidia inspector.

Since moving to P3D, i only needed NI to set SGSS... that totally killed my old 660Ti. I can live with that.

 

So I'am on my way to order a RX480 Nitro from Shappire. We shall see how it performs, hopefully OK. I'm not running a heavy addon sim.

 

The GTX1060 will be totally overpriced and without stock . I'm guessing by the 1070/1080 experience we have here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i know that.. Every tweak or tutorial is done with Nvidia inspector.

Since moving to P3D, i only needed NI to set SGSS... that totally killed my old 660Ti. I can live with that.

 

So I'am on my way to order a RX480 Nitro from Shappire. We shall see how it performs, hopefully OK. I'm not running a heavy addon sim.

 

The GTX1060 will be totally overpriced and without stock . I'm guessing by the 1070/1080 experience we have here.

 

Cool then. Lookin forward to your experience. I do agree with the nVidia price tags they are a pain. IMHO i wont bite the bullet to get ATI/AMD for now. Back in the days of FS9 i had a Dell gaming laptop which was equipped with an ATI GPU. It did quite a great job but it sucked on FSX. Besides that the CPU was way too underpowered by that day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool then. Lookin forward to your experience. I do agree with the nVidia price tags they are a pain. IMHO i wont bite the bullet to get ATI/AMD for now. Back in the days of FS9 i had a Dell gaming laptop which was equipped with an ATI GPU. It did quite a great job but it sucked on FSX. Besides that the CPU was way too underpowered by that day. 

 

Thanks. I was a hard desition to make, but i couldn't stand the blower of my 660Ti any more.

Here, 960's 2GB are the same price as RX480 4Gb...

I also game... Can't wait for BF1!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

It's pretty much common knowledge around here to avoid AMD based cards for FSX or P3D. It's been that way for a while and has nothing to do with using nHancer or Inspector but more to do with performance, especially in clouds where AMD performs worse. Just ask Rob, NickN or anyone who has been doing this since FS9 and they'll tell you to stay away from AMD cards for flight sim.

 

Of course your situation might be different and you'll be fine but you won't know how much better off you would have been had you bought one of the newer nVidia cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Meeb,

 

First of all, welcome to AVSIM. Hope you like it here.

 

As there may always be debate as to which machinery or software is best, you just picked the best place in the hobby to do so! :hi:

 

Kind regards,

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I was a hard desition to make, but i couldn't stand the blower of my 660Ti any more.

Here, 960's 2GB are the same price as RX480 4Gb...

I also game... Can't wait for BF1!

P3D uses CUDA cores which AMD does not support.

Also no Crossfire support.

 

gb.

I'm here to ask about the RX 480 vs the GTX 1060 (based on its reported specs), because I have a couple of questions.

 

P3D uses CUDA cores which AMD does not support.

Also no Crossfire support.

 

gb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

 

Just to add fuel to the fire I would like very much to add some comments and also get some further info on this very subject.

 

Now, I note that all and sundry seem to advocate Nvidia rather than AMD.  I am with FS2004 and have used Nvidia initially GTX9800 and then two by followed by 3 x for multiple monitors.  Worked well in those bad old days and then AMD came up with up to 6  displays on one GPU so I purchased a brand new HD4850 (remember them?) and that was brilliant.  I subsequently bought another two and ran those for a couple of years.  I recently (about two years ago upgraded to R9 290 x 3 to run 6 monitors (two monitors into each GPU). I am getting fps of 60 in the air and 30 on ground. I have never crossfired or SLI'd. Please bear in mind that this is using FS2004 only.  FSX Gold, FSX-SE and P3D v3 will not, repeat, not even open using this configuration, and in fact, I have never been able to complete a flight using multi monitors on the other platforms through all my upgrades.

 

Whether this is AMD related or not may well be irrelevant and I do not wish to bash AMD nor Nvidia.  It does however raise a question regarding the use of multiple GPUs.

 

I have seen many many posts on people utilising multiple Nvidia GPUs, but always in conjunction with an SLI configuration.  Now that Nvidia have multiple outputs this may well be a very viable option but, .... why?  I have never seen a post, other than mine, regarding multiple GPUs without bridging.

 

Is there any perceivable advantage in using crossfire/SLI and plugging all your monitors into one GPU as opposed to (as in my case) connecting two monitors into each GPU? My system seems to work but only with FS2004 and I would be very interested to know what everyones' thoughts are on this.  I have no idea of the technical issues and I just sort of lucked into a very good working system for my FS2004.  Given my purchases of FSX, FSX gold, P3D and FSX-SE I am very much of the mind to upgrade but all efforts have failed thus far.  Should I actually be chasing the multiple Nvidia GPUs and Bridging them to run this config for any new upgrade.

 

Looking forward to all responses

 

Regards

 

Tony Chilcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 FSX Gold, FSX-SE and P3D v3 will not, repeat, not even open using this configuration, and in fact, I have never been able to complete a flight using multi monitors on the other platforms through all my upgrades.

 

 

I use multiple GPU's for my Home cockpit and it works just fine, they are not SLI or anything not sure why you weren't able to get it p3d going...

I do know that FSX !!!! WILL NOT !!! work but p3d has been fixed and works fine.

FSX has a limit of 5 displays if I recall

 

NOTE : DISPLAYS not MONITORS !!!, so there was this limitation in FSX, since in P3D however they fixed it and I can use as many displays as I wish, well I only tried with 8 which equals to number of monitors I use and it worked fine, but I have it set up only as 6 display on daily bases as 3 of them work in NVSurround so it's kind of like that:

 

in use with 737 home cockpit

3x monitor = 1 display Nvidia surround (for main view) >980ti

1x monitor = 1 display (captain Instruments) >970

1x Monitor = 1 display (center panel)  >970

1x monitor = 1 display (FO instruments)  >970

1x monitor = 1 display (CDU)  >970

1x monitor = 1 display (auxiliary) for other programs asn/map etc.. or whatever >980Ti

 

so i have 8 monitors but 6 displays it works well with p3d not for FSX, back in FSX i had to split captain and FO display so they were the same using simple y-cable as limit of 5 displays

 

anyways i don't mean to hijack topic talking about my setup, so back to OP, though I saw he went for ATI card I would also advise against it for sim games as they all fsx/p3d seem to perform better on Nvidia cards., but that's just IMO,

 

i do not think they are bad cards at all but if your main game is p3d/fsx definitely go for Nvidia and more Vram is mainly beneficial when you go higher resolution so in general I would say 4GB card will do just fine for p3d/fsx

 

I had nice boost when i went from 780Ti to 980Ti but again I use high resolution nvsurround is at 6000x1080 then add the auxiliary monitor....but if you don't plan on nvsurround or much higher then 1920x1080 then 4gb card is just fine IMO

 

I also run other games like ARK:Survival Evolved (very GPU intensive game) and it work super on either my 980ti or 970 just as well, same with GTA5/Division/DAYZ etc...

...but yeah for Flight Sim games I would not go to ATI; additionally I never had any issues with NVidia and any other games, so i am definitely in the nvidia crowd LOL  :Tounge:

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any perceivable advantage in using crossfire/SLI and plugging all your monitors into one GPU as opposed to (as in my case) connecting two monitors into each GPU? My system seems to work but only with FS2004 and I would be very interested to know what everyones' thoughts are on this. I have no idea of the technical issues and I just sort of lucked into a very good working system for my FS2004. Given my purchases of FSX, FSX gold, P3D and FSX-SE I am very much of the mind to upgrade but all efforts have failed thus far. Should I actually be chasing the multiple Nvidia GPUs and Bridging them to run this config for any new upgrade.

 

SLI will not allow you to run six independent (as in non-Surround) monitors, as I assume you are doing now.

(Well there are some workarounds but probably with a worse outcome.)

 

gb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as multimonitor goes with P3D i recall that LM recommends 1 monitor per GPU. That was in the days of v2.x. I dont know how it Bereich s with v3.x. I tried 3 gsync monitors in surround but i didnt like it. I stay with my BenQ beamer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all again,

 

Thank you all for your responses which are informative and appreciated.  

 

Andy.

 

Not sure where you are coming from here.  How many GPUs are you using and is Nvidia surround somewhat like a Matrix triplehead2go?

How many monitors/displays are connected to each(?) 970?

If P3D recommend display per GPU (see comment MickeyJ) and if indeed you are complying with this, are you networking computers?

If you are not networking computers can you tell me what mother board you are using to allow placement of the GPUs.

 

Gboz

 

Thanks for that info.  I have never tried to bridge GPUs so that may well have brought me unstuck should I have attempted it.

 

MickeyJ

 

Again, I am unsure about the vsynch system and am pretty sure my monitors/displays are not.

 

Guys, I am pretty sure that I could successfully run my FSX, FSX-SE and P3D in single monitor or even two monitor mode but I just find that so hard to come to grips with after FS2004 and my present multi-monitor setup.

There has to be a way even if I have to wait for all the 64bit systems come into play.  In the short term, it may well be that I am condemned to FS2004, however, given the vast amounts of money that I have thrown at this, I am deeply saddened, if this be the case.

 

However, despite all the information provided in my responses,  I still do not know if there is any perceivable difference in bridging 3 x GPUs to run multiple monitors, or to configure 2 x displays per GPU.

 

In order to achieve my dream, what could possibly be the best configuration.

 

1. Networking two or more computers  using multiple GPUs (1 or more displays connected to each GPU) I am very unsure how to go about this but it would just be a matter of more research I guess.

2. Bridging two or more GPUs (as many as possible displays per GPU)  in a single computer, or,

3. Connecting 2 or more displays to each GPU as in my current configuration

 

I also have a triplehead2go (digital SE) and  tried three displays with that, however for some reason it will 

only give me a total resolution of 3850 x 1080 so I have temporarily abandoned that. Is the 3head2go actually telling FSX that it is a single monitor with a large resolution or is FSX reading it as three monitors? 

 

Thanks again to you all guys for your help and information and I look forward to any further information and or help forthcoming.

 

Regards to all

 

Tony Chilcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

 

I note with some despondency the lack of response to my last questions or rather the repeat/update of my first questions.

 

I wonder why it is that the simmers who are actually able to run FSX or P3D are so reluctant to pass on their expertise or advice.  To be honest, I have been asking these or essentially similar, questions since about 2007 and have never been able to get this advice or to be able to run FSX with multiple monitors.

 

I am not trying to be difficult or nasty with this post.  I genuinely seek the information which will allow me to update to either P3D, FSX-SE or FSX although, I must admit that I believe that updating to FSX is not the best course to follow due to its lack of updating by Microsoft.  

 

Do I really have to wait for P3D to go to 64 bit, or the new DTG 64 bit sim to get anywhere.  Will, in fact, going to 64 bit actually be beneficial to utilising multiple monitors.  As far as I can see, the greatest benefit is going to be in the far superior use of RAM and I do not believe for one minute that RAM is the major cause of my failure to use multi monitors/displays.

 

So, another appeal for help please

 

Thanks

 

Tony Chilcott 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony,  maybe not many have a multi-monitor setup to rival yours..

 

I sure don't    :nea: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony,  maybe not many have a multi-monitor setup to rival yours..

 

I sure don't    :nea:

 

Tony,

 

Like Bert, I am sympathetic to your lack of response, but can not advise or assist you.

 

I only use a single large TV as a monitor with Track IR, so although I have used a small second monitor from time to time to put my GPS on, I have no multi-monitor knowledge or experience.

 

Hopefully before long the right people will see your posts and step up.

 

Kind regards,

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