WARNING - When upgrading your GPU for Xplane

[Denco 48]

I recommend going for a TITAN with 12GB of VRAM. I made a mistake when I was rebuilding my computer of buying a GTX 1080 thinking 8GB is enough. Sadly it's not. There's a big difference between Very High and Extreme texture quality with the later making custom Ortho Sceneries a lot better.

 

 

[strider1 575]

I recommend going for a TITAN with 12GB of VRAM. I made a mistake when I was rebuilding my computer of buying a GTX 1080 thinking 8GB is enough. Sadly it's not. There's a big difference between Very High and Extreme texture quality with the later making custom Ortho Sceneries a lot better.

 

Last time I check my vram I was using about 6GB of vram, thats on high settings. The Titan is way overpriced, the average simmer is not going to pay that kind of money. I am waiting for AMD's high end VEGA 10 gpu with 16GB of HBM2 memory ! The price should be a lot more reasonable, hopefully ! 

[Colonel X 1,430]

When you're not using ortho sceneries, 6 GB is sufficient. I run X-Plane maxed out (except for shadows and water reflections), and usage never surpasses 5.6 GB.

[Don Quixote 76]

I'm using ZL17 Ortho4XP tiles for Switzerland, Austria and Italy, and it works just fine ona GTX770 with 4GB. That's on "very high" and with texture compression enabled. Although "Extreme" does look slightly better, the difference is hard to see while you're flying.

[Denco 48]

Well, this is my VRAM usage on ground at KLAX from Mister6X and FF767. Please keep in mind that Ortho textures don't increase your VRAM usage because for me it is the same with or without orthos.

 

 

I'm also running SkyMaxx, but I disabled it for one of the test's and VRAM usage was the same.

[Don Quixote 76]

Well, the reading in the X-Plane menu is about 3GB of VRAM which sounds about right with your scenery, aircraft and settings. The other reading on the top right is perhaps something to do with memory management (Windows doesn't clear RAM until needed, perhaps your GPU does the same). You should be perfectly fine with your hardware!  :smile:

[Denco 48]

I was advised by a user on reddit ( Sethos ) to disable the extended scenery. I immediately went from 30 fps at cruising altitude to 50 fps with no stutters. This one option was causing so many problems and I never realized it could be the culprit of all my fps issues

[Jimmy RFR 406]

There's a large difference in the sim being able to take advantage of an increased amount of available VRAM, and the sim actually needing it to function.

 

My 980ti has 6GB of VRAM, I run 'extreme' without any negative effects.

[gpb500 10]

I was advised by a user on reddit ( Sethos ) to disable the extended scenery. I immediately went from 30 fps at cruising altitude to 50 fps with no stutters. This one option was causing so many problems and I never realized it could be the culprit of all my fps issues

Interesting...I'm running a 970 with extended and normally do bump up against the 4GB the card has, but it's not unusual for me to get 50+ fps in SoCal with 2x AA...most other settings high except for shadows (3D on aircraft) and water reflection off.  My other settings are similar to yours except again for number of objects is lower because the placement of the low quality art over photo scenery is a bit of a negative IMO and number of roads is lower than extreme, but I do have traffic set to the kansas option.  With a 1080, you should be 100+ all the time with DSF Exteneded on (what I use).  I did have a problem when moving to 10.50...and the fix for me seemed to be deleting preferences and re-establishing them.  I read that's a recommended procedure.  Perhaps you're running multiple monitors though...not sure what display you're pushing.  Oh also have my SMP set to 30K.  You have a high end system...something seems wrong.  (I'm also running ZL17 photo.)

[Sethos 4,333]

Interesting...I'm running a 970 with extended and normally do bump up against the 4GB the card has, but it's not unusual for me to get 50+ fps in SoCal with 2x AA...most other settings high except for shadows (3D on aircraft) and water reflection off.  My other settings are similar to yours except again for number of objects is lower because the placement of the low quality art over photo scenery is a bit of a negative IMO and number of roads is lower than extreme, but I do have traffic set to the kansas option.  With a 1080, you should be 100+ all the time with DSF Exteneded on (what I use).  I did have a problem when moving to 10.50...and the fix for me seemed to be deleting preferences and re-establishing them.  I read that's a recommended procedure.  Perhaps you're running multiple monitors though...not sure what display you're pushing.  Oh also have my SMP set to 30K.  You have a high end system...something seems wrong.  (I'm also running ZL17 photo.)

 

GPU has little to do with the extended DSF option. It's the CPU that renders geometry (autogen and initial terrain render), traffic and all that. Only thing it could help with is if you're hitting the VRAM limit but outside of that, Extended DSF is REALLY taxing in some areas.

[shamrockflyer 647]

Well, this is my VRAM usage on ground at KLAX from Mister6X and FF767.

 

 

 

Let me just explain a little something - the Flight Factor 767 is not exactly performance friendly, it is in fact one of the worst for performance for me with the IXEG 737 being better on performance with 5 to 7 fps more than the FF767, there are higher quality textures on the IXEG 737 but it is very well optimized, the FF767 is not. 

[Colonel X 1,430]

I think performance comparisons should only be done using standard planes such as the Cessna or 747... everything else is a personal offset.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I recommend going for a TITAN with 12GB of VRAM. I made a mistake when I was rebuilding my computer of buying a GTX 1080 thinking 8GB is enough. Sadly it's not. There's a big difference between Very High and Extreme texture quality with the later making custom Ortho Sceneries a lot better.

Hi,

 

I have XP 10.51r max'ed with each and every option you have control over, to their highest setting.  That of course, includes running the sim at Extreme Res.

 

With all of the above in play, my 8GB card sill has just under 1.2 GB's of GPU resident memory, free.  Oh...that is with SMP cranked right out as well, and using a Carenado G.A. or Business class sled.  

[alfamike 67]

I recommend going for a TITAN with 12GB of VRAM. I made a mistake when I was rebuilding my computer of buying a GTX 1080 thinking 8GB is enough. 

 

Not sure you made a mistake: if I'm not wrong that Titan, as dual GPU board, doesn't have 12Gb Vram but it has 2x6Gb as it work in SLI so the real Vram is 6Gb (in this configuration memory is mirrored, not summed), in this case your 1080 with 8Gb is better.

And X-Plane doesn't take advantage from multi GPU systems, but this is another topic.

[Sethos 4,333]

Not sure you made a mistake: if I'm not wrong that Titan, as dual GPU board, doesn't have 12Gb Vram but it has 2x6Gb as it work in SLI so the real Vram is 6Gb (in this configuration memory is mirrored, not summed), in this case your 1080 with 8Gb is better.

And X-Plane doesn't take advantage from multi GPU systems, but this is another topic.

 

You may be thinking of the Titan Z, that was indeed an SLI-in-one card, thus splitting the 12GB pool. However the newest card, the Titan X, is true single core full-fat 12GB.