Sign in to follow this  
Rob Ainscough

GTX 970 vs GTX 1080 FE

Recommended Posts

Took me a while, but was finally able to find a GTX 1080 FE available for sale.  Thought I'd share results from my test PC comparing going from a 970 to a 1080.  This is specific to P3D.

 

970 Medium            FPS 43, 31, 28  - 2560 x 1440  


 

970 Extreme           FPS 30, 21, 19  - 2560 x 1440  


 

1080 Medium           FPS 45, 33, 30  - 2560 x 1440  


 

1080 Extreme          FPS 34, 24, 22  - 2560 x 1440


  

1080 Medium WideView  FPS 37, 28, 22  - 7680 x 1440


 

1080 Extreme WideView FPS 28, 20, 19  - 7680 x 1440


 

Was not able to run my GTX 970 at 7680 x 1440 (Widview) so couldn't compare.

 


 

Summary

GTX 1080 FE at Medium graphics 4.6% increase over 970

GTX 1080 FE at Extreme graphics 13.3% increase over 970

GTX 1080 FE going from 2560 x 1440 to 7680 x 1440 17.7% decrease in FPS

 

My Test PC Specs

Windows 10 64bit

FlightSim: P3D V3.3 (no add-ons)

CPU: 3960X @4.2 GHz 2133Mhz 32GB RAM

SSD: Samsung 2X EVO 840 1TB

Monitors: 3X Acer K272HUL - DisplayPort 

GPU: Asus 970 Strix, nVidia 1080GTX FE

 

Note:

1920 x 1080 (baseline) =  2,073,600 pixels (HD)

2560 x 1440            =  3,686,400 pixels - 78% increase in pixels

3840 x 2160            =  8,294,400 pixels - 300% increase in pixels (4K)

7680 x 1440            = 11,059,200 pixels - 433% increase in pixels

 

Since I have no means to direct record 7680 x 1440, I used one of my video cameras for external:

 


 

Note 2: 

This is my test PC not my main FlightSim PC.  I'm not a fan of 3 monitor setups (bezels) but received several requests for me to run a 3 monitor test on these two GPUs (970/1080), so I finally got around to it.

 

Cheers, Rob.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

So in a nut shell no way your going to be replacing you Titan X's - great post very informative Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, there isn't enough in the GTX 1080 (at least in terms of P3D anyway and extrapolating from 970 to 1080) that would warrant me to replace the Titan X's ... I'll wait until 2017 for next gen nVidia cards.  

 

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this Rob

Been considering a change of Card and looking at your results think I might wait and see if the price on 980Ti drops a bit and go with that. Cheers Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea takes some years to pass for the next wow video card to come out but a good choice for those who have not invested in a Titan X  - and test above was not even against a Titan so those numbers would probably the same or even a bit worse compared to the mighty Titan 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this mostly just showing how cpu bound the program is?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this mostly just showing how cpu bound the program is?

 

That's exactly what I was going to say. It's really showing that P3D depends more on the CPU once GPU power goes beyond a certain point, for typical resolutions anyway. In other benchmarks, the 1080 is wayyyy beyond a 970.

 

It's still a useful test though because it does show exactly what one can expect if P3D performance is their top priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the post Rob. Exceptional information as always. I thought that the 1xxx series cards were going to be a leap in tech and performance rather than just a marginal increase. Do you know more about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the post Rob. Exceptional information as always. I thought that the 1xxx series cards were going to be a leap in tech and performance rather than just a marginal increase. Do you know more about that?

 

See above. It's a sign of P3D's reliance on CPU power as well as GPU power. In typical gaming (games like Battlefield, Witcher 3, and so on) the performance delta is far greater between the 9xx series and 1xxx series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See above. It's a sign of P3D's reliance on CPU power as well as GPU power. In typical gaming (games like Battlefield, Witcher 3, and so on) the performance delta is far greater between the 9xx series and 1xxx series.

Well that is good to hear. Hopefully either Dovetail FS or P3D v4 will truly depend wayyyy more on the GPU, which I would imagine would require a ton of different coding.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Rob, I moved from a GTX 770 to 1080 and its a huge improvement of course.

But in some airports my cpu now limits like latin vfr kmia or imaginesim atlanta. In other big airports its running well my cpu is a i5 4670K at 4,3ghz. I am not planning to upgrade my cpu so:

I want ask you what setting is more cpu depended? I know you already mentioned this somewhere but I cant find that thread.

 

Thank you.

 

Edit: @MikeT707: yeah i can confirm that. I am able to play GTA 5 in 4k with max settings. I am getting 60fps evertime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad you couldn't compare the GTX970 to the GTX1080 in Wideview, because this is where I would have expected a more significant step-up in performance. I'm currently running a triple monitor setup on a GTX780 and thinking about upgrading to a GTX1070 which should give some improvement at least in dense clouds. I will report back if I do the upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, thanks Rob, that is interesting .

 

I am waiting since weeks for my 1080. I might change my order to a 1070 that is available now and spend the 200 bucks elsewhere.

 

I am not sure if you published the results on a single monitor already? What is the performance there, or is that compare able with above results?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really can't compare a complex flight simulator to 3D shooters ... if you want to get an idea why flight simulators require as much CPU processing as available, load up your tool of choice to subscribe to SimConnect events/variables and watch the stream of data (GoFlight Interface Tool will demonstrate this very well) ... here is an old list (ESP 1.0) of variables and here is a list of events but hopefully this gives you an idea of why flight sims are so CPU demanding .  

 

Toss in your favorite add-ons (Traffic, ATC, GSX, AS, etc.) and give the CPU even more work.  3D shooters don't need to take into account wind speed, barometric pressure, temperature, object drag, ground friction, EGT temps, oil pressure, etc. etc. etc. ... these are all elements that need to be calculated by the CPU.

 

Things that the GPU does

1.  Batch AG

2.  Reflections

3.  Shadows

4.  Tessellation

5.  HDR

 

And of course as screen size increase, more pixels to process (set color) and more work for the GPU.

 

3D shooters don't need to evaluate/process anywhere close to this number of events/variables nor do they have to make them make any sense ... basically run, jump, crouch, shoot, weapon select, pickup action, the weapon physics don't need to be accurate, there is no "world" time ... this doesn't require much CPU time.  There are limits of how much work the GPU can do, but if expectations are "GTA V can do it, then so should a flight sim" then I think many are going to be disappointed because the two paradigm are very different in scope.

 

Performance adjustments do continue in P3D as new ways are found to work AG and other view optimizations ... but it's not a infinite road of optimization and keep in mind that optimization can sometimes come at the cost of visual accuracy.  With that said, a typical P3D flight for me will see my main core CPU around 80-90%, my other CPUs at 40-80% pending speed and location, and my GPUs at 60-90% ... that's a pretty good balanced distribution ... in fact, the power loads on my main FS PC can be so high that it will actually trigger my 1500 Watt UPS/line condition to kick-in to keep consistent power output (so it's definitely working very hard!!)

 

Keep in mind performance improvement between the 970 and the 1080 increased (13%) as graphics loads/settings increased, that's important (not enough for me to swap a Titan X for a 1080), but if one is close to hitting their FPS goals that 13% might be enough.

 

Cheers, Rob.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right Rob, you can't compare the two which is why I said it's still a valuable test result, since we can't just go look at Dark Souls 3 benchmarks or something and assume the difference will be equal coming to P3D. I was just noting that it's less to do with how much of a leap the 1xxx series than it is the type of program (P3D) being benched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really can't compare a complex flight simulator to 3D shooters ... if you want to get an idea why flight simulators require as much CPU processing as available, load up your tool of choice to subscribe to SimConnect events/variables and watch the stream of data (GoFlight Interface Tool will demonstrate this very well) ... here is an old list (ESP 1.0) of variables and here is a list of events but hopefully this gives you an idea of why flight sims are so CPU demanding .  

 

Toss in your favorite add-ons (Traffic, ATC, GSX, AS, etc.) and give the CPU even more work.  3D shooters don't need to take into account wind speed, barometric pressure, temperature, object drag, ground friction, EGT temps, oil pressure, etc. etc. etc. ... these are all elements that need to be calculated by the CPU.

 

Things that the GPU does

1.  Batch AG

2.  Reflections

3.  Shadows

4.  Tessellation

5.  HDR

 

And of course as screen size increase, more pixels to process (set color) and more work for the GPU.

 

3D shooters don't need to evaluate/process anywhere close to this number of events/variables nor do they have to make them make any sense ... basically run, jump, crouch, shoot, weapon select, pickup action, the weapon physics don't need to be accurate, there is no "world" time ... this doesn't require much CPU time.  There are limits of how much work the GPU can do, but if expectations are "GTA V can do it, then so should a flight sim" then I think many are going to be disappointed because the two paradigm are very different in scope.

 

Performance adjustments do continue in P3D as new ways are found to work AG and other view optimizations ... but it's not a infinite road of optimization and keep in mind that optimization can sometimes come at the cost of visual accuracy.  With that said, a typical P3D flight for me will see my main core CPU around 80-90%, my other CPUs at 40-80% pending speed and location, and my GPUs at 60-90% ... that's a pretty good balanced distribution ... in fact, the power loads on my main FS PC can be so high that it will actually trigger my 1500 Watt UPS/line condition to kick-in to keep consistent power output (so it's definitely working very hard!!)

 

Keep in mind performance improvement between the 970 and the 1080 increased (13%) as graphics loads/settings increased, that's important (not enough for me to swap a Titan X for a 1080), but if one is close to hitting their FPS goals that 13% might be enough.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

Yes your are right of course. But I wanted to say something different.

Look at my settings, I am now able to set everything to high.

Only Scenery Objects are lower because it kills my fps..maybe its too much CPU depended.

 

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/user/160719/pirelgbs.jpg

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/user/160719/at8iby39.jpg

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/user/160719/nienpbz9.jpg

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/user/160719/9aofb9jc.jpg

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/user/160719/9vxj5w8h.jpg

 

AI Traffic is at 100%. I reduce the traffic with AI Traffic Manager.

 

The red circle is my fps killer. When I set up higher my CPU are going to 100%. Its too much CPU depended I think. Maybe LM work on it and makes more GPU depended imho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Only Scenery Objects are lower because it kills my fps..maybe its too much CPU depended.

 

Based on those screen shots it looks like you've compromised autogen and scenery complexity in order to have more shadows and reflections ... so you've found the balance you prefer.  But you're running at 1080p so that will put less stress on the GPU.

 

AI traffic at 100% will certainly put a strain on the CPU side even with an AI Traffic Manager.  

 

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rob

I'm still sticking with FSX for the moment and am in the process of building a new machine ( i7 6700K with in light of your testing a 980Ti)  . I intended to keep my old machine which is an i5 with a GTX 660Ti and run as many secondary programs such as ASX ELB etc on it to take some off the load of FSX. What programs can I run on the second machine and do I risk creating a bottle neck trying to ram it from another machine to the new? Appreciate your advice.

Cheers Pete

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got the Zotac GTX1080 Amp Extream,picked up like 15 frames in Xplane,haven't tried it in P3D yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do I risk creating a bottle neck trying to ram it from another machine to the new?

 

I think you should be fine, on my main FS setup I run a networked PC that's an old AMD A4 3400 - added a nVidia GT740 - it networks just fine with ELB, PFPX, PRO-ATC X, FSCommander ... just make sure you're operating your network hard wired at 1Gbps full duplex.

 

Cheers, Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Based on those screen shots it looks like you've compromised autogen and scenery complexity in order to have more shadows and reflections ... so you've found the balance you prefer.  But you're running at 1080p so that will put less stress on the GPU.

 

I already testet in 4k with DSR because my Monitor is not 4k nativ. The Problem is, the lettering gets too small and my eyes hurts. Is there any fix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already testet in 4k with DSR because my Monitor is not 4k nativ. The Problem is, the lettering gets too small and my eyes hurts. Is there any fix?

 

Just increase the Windows text scaling.

 

gb.

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