Sign in to follow this  
theskyisthelimit

980ti SC+ to 1080 FTW Performance changes or lack there of?

Recommended Posts

I decided to throw this in its own thread, since its pretty specific..

 

Basically I used fsmark07 and other means to gauge a baseline before switching to the evga 1080 FTW to see if i would get a jump in performance.

 

Well, there was NO CHANGE, maybe a slight loss..  (3dmark firestrike ultra went from say 4100 to 5500, so i do see the expected normal 3D increase, but nothing for p3d)

 

My fsmark07 120sec run went from 24.8 fps to around 23.5 as well.. the initial paused screen went from 33 fps to 31ish.  I also tested oculus rift / flyinside performance, there was hardly any perceivable change.. panning may have been slightly smoother, but still stuttered (no matter the settings), see my other thread for those type of VR details.

 

I saw others online who have made the swap and have had similar experiences.. seems either p3d just doesnt utilize the full benefit of the 1080.. or the nvidia driver has a bug or both.  (or its the usual cpu locked application problem thats plagued the sim for years, despite recent updates)

 

When i ran my testing, i saw the GPU hit a max of 80C and 60% utilization, while the prepar3d.exe averages 35% during the test give or take.

 

I tried setting the NI profile to maximum performance per someone elses suggestion I found.. i also cleared the shader cache and i renamed the prepar3d.cfg file to have it rebuild it, with no change once I put all my sliders back to their settings (which are already pretty high to begin with, including reflections, cloud shadows etc).

 

Just curious if anyone else has found a solution on this.

 

I'm debating if this doesnt have a fix, to return the card and get another 980ti for SLI, mainly for VR.. not sure if that would even make a difference in the VR world, but i have no comparibles to check.

 

Thanks in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

You've probably considered this already, but most of the new cards come with manufacturer specific software which allows overclocking etc.

 

They usually have a facility to control the max power the card is allowed to use, which you can adjust. Your situation sounds like throttling of some kind.

 

With all the pressure from the eco warriors these days, is it possible that EVGA has set a default power setting at less than what is required for full performance.

Share this post


Link to post

You've probably considered this already, but most of the new cards come with manufacturer specific software which allows overclocking etc.

 

They usually have a facility to control the max power the card is allowed to use, which you can adjust. Your situation sounds like throttling of some kind.

 

With all the pressure from the eco warriors these days, is it possible that EVGA has set a default power setting at less than what is required for full performance.

 

Absolutely. It is best if you use the manufacturer utility. In some of my tests with my new GTX1080 strix I overclocked with the Nvidia Inspector utility. The base clock overclock ok, but not the Power and Temperature; as a matter of fact it reduced the GPU clock to levels that I have never seen before: like 200mhz for current speed. Had to reboot and everything went back to normal.

I now use exclusively Asus gpu tweak and reach speeds upwards of 2020 for the clock. And temperature is in the sixties with the fan at 60 percent.

The fan control utility is also something that you want to tweak.

What speed did the 1080 reach in your tests?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Perfectly normal. Furmark, 3d mark,etc all take advantage of the current state of the art methods to test hardware. Modern game titles have been designed with these methods in mind. 

 

P3D is based on the ESP engine, which is antique by current standards - big kudos to LM for getting as much out of it as they have but until that core code is completely rewritten you will never see that kind of performance jump. Small improvements, yes but even though there is still room for improvement by upgrading hardware, that window is small. 

 

IMHO, in the OP's case, it's six of one and half dozen of the other as to whether or not two 980's will outperform a single 1080 in P3D.

 

Just MHO,

 

Vic

Share this post


Link to post

P3D is mainly cpu driven.

You will see improvement with a faster cpu, not by swapping a 980ti with a 1080.

 

There is a very simple test : run P3D in a window, and resize that window (from full screen to smaller)

If there is no significant fps change, then a faster gpu will get you no benefit at all.

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't trade my 980Ti for a 1080; however, the 1080Ti might be a different case but not expecting a quantum leap.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a 980ti and will only upgrade if Nividia releases a 1080ti.  I agree with Willy, as P3D is more cpu driven so you would see more improvement by upgrading your cpu.  I upgrade my cpu, memory, and video card all at the same time every two years, but depends on your budget.

Share this post


Link to post

Did you try turning everything to max in P3D and testing that way? Usually higher resolution, AA/AF (+lots of clouds), shadows, water detail, reflections, HDR use more GPU than say bunch of autogen. That might leverage GPUs differently.

Share this post


Link to post

Did you try turning everything to max in P3D and testing that way? Usually higher resolution, AA/AF (+lots of clouds), shadows, water detail, reflections, HDR use more GPU than say bunch of autogen. That might leverage GPUs differently.

 

Yeah, I tried cranking these up.. it lowered the paused fps from 31 to 20 on the 1080.. I didnt try the same test on the 980ti though.

 

I would have expected at least a 5-10% increase going from 980 to the 1080, but then again, i'm comparing the jump I had from 780 to 980.. i was hoping for 5 fps difference, doesnt sound like much but would have been.

 

I"m doing similar max out tests in other VR programs to see at what point things become stuttery, then try the same test on the 980ti.. if they still equal out then i guess ill get rid of the 1080, if the 1080 wins on all other arenas, then maybe hold on to it.

 

BIggest hope was that it would help with VR and flyinside, hence i wish i had another 980 to test the sli and compare as well.

 

I might consider doing a clean install on different drives just to perfectly rule that out, but i'm sure its the CPU locked P3D at fault here (unless my p3d install is just mangled because i have so many things installed and maybe one is killing frames).

Share this post


Link to post

Low GPU usage is sometimes an indicator of an overburdened CPU ( an overloaded CPU can't feed the GPU so it has a lot of wasted time waiting). Maybe take a look at Robs P3D guide and see which settings affect CPU and which the GPU and adjust from there.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I tried cranking these up.. it lowered the paused fps from 31 to 20 on the 1080.. I didnt try the same test on the 980ti though.

 

I would have expected at least a 5-10% increase going from 980 to the 1080, but then again, i'm comparing the jump I had from 780 to 980.. i was hoping for 5 fps difference, doesnt sound like much but would have been.

 

 

Adding a better GPU won't give you more frames unless you're previous GPU was saturated with load.  

 

Typically you'll just be able to run more eye candy, like better AA or turning water or shadows up some more, you should be able to get a decent boost on GPU specific tasks that P3D does, but you're overall fps will be the same.

 

if you want fps boost, then improve the cpu where possible is the most direct approach, overclock it etc if you haven't already.

Share this post


Link to post

Use GPU-Z and monitor the graphs after flying around somewhere intensive for a bit.

 

If the Load and Memory graphs are close to maximum then you will benefit from an upgrade.

 

If they are halfway or less then its a waste of money.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, this is also what I was getting at. Be CPU limited (CPU maxed, GPU not), getting faster CPU will give you more FPS. Other way applies of course too.

 

Best thing is always to balance the two. So you get best of both worlds. In my experience, doing somewhere about 70% on the GPU in most of situations is the best option. But I don't use that many shadows. That way, if clouds get really dense, your FPS won't drop too much. Of course the more GPU stuff you use, the more this overhead will be needed. Als using stuff like Sparse Grid Supersampling in the Nvidia Inspector will push the GPU usage a LOT.

 

Setting this up is only a matter of trial and error.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem is CPU's arent really getting faster in per core performance which is what p3d and FSX need. In fact my 4790k is just as good as a 6700k in the reguard according to benchmarks. I'm running a 2 year old cpu and upgrading would be pointless as there is no benefit to performance. The X99 ram is faster (DDR4) but not enough to justify a new build.

Intel or AMD need to start getting the clockspeeds higher maybe 6-7ghz instead of sticking around at 3-4ghz that we'be been at for the past 10+ years. Yes I know new cpu's are more efficient but I had I pentium 4 that was 3.2ghz out of the box 13 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem is CPU's arent really getting faster in per core performance which is what p3d and FSX need. In fact my 4790k is just as good as a 6700k in the reguard according to benchmarks. I'm running a 2 year old cpu and upgrading would be pointless as there is no benefit to performance. The X99 ram is faster (DDR4) but not enough to justify a new build.

Intel or AMD need to start getting the clockspeeds higher maybe 6-7ghz instead of sticking around at 3-4ghz that we'be been at for the past 10+ years. Yes I know new cpu's are more efficient but I had I pentium 4 that was 3.2ghz out of the box 13 years ago.

 

A Pentium 4 at 4.0 GHz is still much slower than a 3.0 GHz 6700K. Clock speeds aren't really an indicator of processor power anymore. Rather the the instructions per cycle is more important today. The new Intel chips today are able to complete many more instructions each cycle, which makes them quicker today although the number of cycles per second hasn't really moved beyond 4 GHz for a while.

Share this post


Link to post

A Pentium 4 at 4.0 GHz is still much slower than a 3.0 GHz 6700K. Clock speeds aren't really an indicator of processor power anymore. Rather the the instructions per cycle is more important today. The new Intel chips today are able to complete many more instructions each cycle, which makes them quicker today although the number of cycles per second hasn't really moved beyond 4 GHz for a while.

 

Just discovered my several years old 4930k hex seems to be running too hot, maybe 85C max during p3D.. used to be around 70.. i'm assuming this is the result of years of overclocking or maybe the thermal compound needs changed, unsure.. but its had me thinking of swapping to something newer as well.. beyond the whole 980 vs 1080 issue.

 

Apparently late this year Kaby Lake cpu's are due out.. i7-7700k that may have turbos 4.2-4.5ghz..  Or perhaps just jumping to an i7-6700k .. passmark cpumark wise though, i get 16,000 right now on a hex, core speed aside.. the i7-6700 at 4.0ghz is 10,985 not overclocking.  (there is also a broadwell 6850 at 3.6/3.8 with 14,091 cpumarks).. i guess if i switched to a 6700, overall i might see a 4fps drop if its truly only related to the core speed.. i say 4, because in overclocking 3.4 to 4.4 i see 7-9 fps improvement.  

 

It would have been nice to get a cpu and not have to overclock it.. maybe waiting till november for the 7700 is the ticket if I do swap cpus.

 

Back on the GPU.. ran some retests.. 99% gpu on my fsmark07 now.. temps still too hot, 82-83C at the threshold.. 90% fan at that point too.. idle with no fan its 53C, set the fan to 30% and more like 44C.. doesnt matter if i set the fan curve to have more on at idle or not, still reaches critical mass each time in my case with the airflow i have going on.

 

I also ran my barebones tests and my fsmark07 with nothing installed rings in around 45 fps with 3 screens (5760 res).. vs 31 with the sim fully loaded.. ill try a nothing installed comparable on the 980ti to see how that differs, expecting it to be the same though.  I still think there is enough of a jump with typical 3D/VR games over the 980ti to justify keeping the card though, in general.

Share this post


Link to post

Just for reference, i had a chance to test two 1080 ftw (hybrid) cards in SLI.. results in this thread.. not a huge difference either, even in VR, mainly advantage being turning on more effects and SGSS without much of a hit.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe your best bet for now would be to pick up another 980Ti for SLI.  It would probably fairly inexpensive now.  I have that setup and gained about 18-20% in FPS over my single 980Ti.

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe your best bet for now would be to pick up another 980Ti for SLI. It would probably fairly inexpensive now. I have that setup and gained about 18-20% in FPS over my single 980Ti.

 

Jeff

I don't have a 980ti anymore, just the 1080 ftw hybrid along with the extra 1080 for the test. Both cards have to be identical for sli

 

Did you change any NI settings to boost things with SLI with p3d?

Share this post


Link to post

 I just turned SLI on/off in NCP.  I used the same scenario/location for both SLI on and off and that's all.  I didn't do any more-sophisticated testing, but did try it several times with same results.  I was using default aircraft, ORBX, and MyTraffic 6. You can see my setup in my sig.  My system is running smoothly and I like to hope maybe I have a little extra "juice" if I need it.

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post

 I just turned SLI on/off in NCP.  I used the same scenario/location for both SLI on and off and that's all.  I didn't do any more-sophisticated testing, but did try it several times with same results.  I was using default aircraft, ORBX, and MyTraffic 6. You can see my setup in my sig.  My system is running smoothly and I like to hope maybe I have a little extra "juice" if I need it.

 

Jeff

Someone in the flyinsidefsx side of things seemed to indicate that VR and flyinsidefsx dont mix.. leading to latency and other issues (and maybe the pan stuttering i'm getting with sli).. are you running VR or just 2D?

 

I disabled sli, it didnt fix the stuttering however.. removing that second card did though.

I just cant hit 90 ATW with 4 SGSS and a single card in VR land.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


Someone in the flyinsidefsx side of things seemed to indicate that VR and flyinsidefsx dont mix.. leading to latency and other issues (and maybe the pan stuttering i'm getting with sli).. are you running VR or just 2D?

 

No VR here.

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post

Someone in the flyinsidefsx side of things seemed to indicate that VR and flyinsidefsx dont mix.. leading to latency and other issues (and maybe the pan stuttering i'm getting with sli).. are you running VR or just 2D?

 

I disabled sli, it didnt fix the stuttering however.. removing that second card did though.

I just cant hit 90 ATW with 4 SGSS and a single card in VR land.

This should have read, SLI + flyinside not mixing.. however, i came to realize i needed an HB sli adapter to get the full bandwidth, i'm retesting 1080 sli in the next few days (if i can shake a micro stuttering issue i'm not having)

Share this post


Link to post

This should have read, SLI + flyinside not mixing.. however, i came to realize i needed an HB sli adapter to get the full bandwidth, i'm retesting 1080 sli in the next few days (if i can shake a micro stuttering issue i'm not having)

I received the SLI HB Evga adapter today.. short story is through my tests, no change, didnt help with head turning/panning stuttering.. neither does frame rate lock at any level.

 

Also.. when you use SLI + 4SGSS + rain (at least rain / clouds), the sim frame rate stays the same, but the ATW drops to 30-40!  yikes.

So as of this writing it appears the 1080 SLI idea is a no go.. will just have to live with no SGSS and semi low frame rate in some areas with 3 layers of clouds + rain (18-25 fps worst case).

Share this post


Link to post

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