Thinking of GPU Upgrade

[Muskoka 104]

Finally some love to AMD cards. Improved my performance by more than 50% on average on my R9 390. Sitting at the runway at ESMS with the default C172, clear weather, 13:00 in the beginning of January now gives about 35 FPS instead of 22 FPS as I had in previous betas.

 

Edit: Most things at high, textures max, reflections minimal, no ground shadows. Taking a huge FPS hit (roughly 30-50%) if I increase reflections to low, a bit unexpected considering I have a 4960X @ 4.3 GHz.

 

I'm thinking of a gpu upgrade, and with the recent improvements in this last beta for AMD cards, it has peaked my interest. I like their price point. I currently have a GTX 670 4gb ( 4.5 yrs with this card), and would like to get one of the newer AMD 8gb cards. I'm posting some screenshots of roughly the same test you did (I assume), same airport, similar settings (?). Can you do a test with the same settings I used, and let me know what you get for fps, sitting at ESMS, clear weather, 13:00 hour, with the default C172 running?

 

As you can see in the screenshot I'm getting almost 64 fps, and that R9 390 should run circles around a GTX 670. So I'm still a little concerned with AMD's performance, again, only in XPlane. Running everywhere they're fantastic cards. I understand these improvements are great for those that already have a AMD card, and were suffering, and any improvement is a bonus. I just don't know if it's worth my time even looking at AMD yet, if your still only getting 35 fps, given the recent improvements. Maybe you have some setting a lot higher than me, or are at a much higher resolution? My cpu is a i7 2600k at 4.5 ghz, 16 gb ram, Win 7 Pro. Monitor is 29" at 2560x1080. Apologies for somewhat hijacking this thread, but when the guys posted about the improvements in PB9 for AMD, I'd like to see how my "old" card compares, setting for setting in sim, before making a move, or spending money. I was thinking about a GTX 1060 6gb, but if the AMD cards performance is getting that much better, I can get a higher end AMD 8gb card for about the same money. It's the extra memory I'm looking for, as I'm constantly hitting the 4gb limit of the 670 now as it is. Usually don't run textures on full, but I did for this test, as the poster said they did. Thanks for any info.

 

 

[Jim Young 2,356]

Split from pb9 is out topic as this is about GPU's.

[Muskoka 104]

Thanks Jim. Didn't know how to quote someone in a new thread.

[be77solo 125]

Hi, I would not recommend an AMD card just yet if you want to regularly use X-Plane in the long haul.  AMD performance was terrible in XP10/11PB, is now better in the latest PB, but, it's still not up to the "normal" Nvidia level across the board from what I read.  I say this as a disappointed AMD user (390X) that had to switch to a Nvidia 1070.

[Muskoka 104]

Hi, I would not recommend an AMD card just yet if you want to regularly use X-Plane in the long haul.  AMD performance was terrible in XP10/11PB, is now better in the latest PB, but, it's still not up to the "normal" Nvidia level across the board from what I read.  I say this as a disappointed AMD user (390X) that had to switch to a Nvidia 1070.

Ya, I get all that. Been down this path already years ago with XPlane. Was just curious how they now compared, setting for setting, with the recent improvements that were made, and hopefully continue to be made by Laminar, and more importantly, AMD's driver department, where OpenGL struggles . I think any decent card out there is "fast" enough to run X-Plane, the issue is now the amount of ram. In 11 I've had to stop using HD mesh and the like, because I'm constantly hitting the 4gb limit of my card, and the sim is crashing due to an Nvidia error, surely the lack of ram. Even with HD mesh gone, I'm still in the 3.3-3.5 gb range, starting at my usual departure CYYZ. And, you can see above, my settings are modestly high at best. With 11, 8gb is surely the way to go, but I refuse to give Nvidia the crazy amount of money they want for their 8gb cards. A rx 480 8gb is priced right in line with the 1060 6gb, and, as speed is not the limiting factor, the extra ram would sure be welcomed.

[CarlosF 1,234]

With 11, 8gb

 

8g is not enough if you want to use HDM, get al least 16g.

 

I have a 970 w/4g ram and have great performance all across.

 

My settings:

 

locked 1/2 refresh 30fps

Visual effects: Hight (HDR)

Texture Quality: High

Antialiasing: 2x SSAA+FXAA

Objects: Max

Reflections: Minimal

[Muskoka 104]

H

8g is not enough if you want to use HDM, get al least 16g.

I have a 970 w/4g ram and have great performance all across.

My settings:

locked 1/2 refresh 30fps
Visual effects: Hight (HDR)
Texture Quality: High
Antialiasing: 2x SSAA+FXAA
Objects: Max
Reflections: Minimal

Huh, never seen a 16gb AMD, or gtx 1060. Got a link? This post from the beginning is about upgrading a video card, nothing mentioned here at all about system ram, which I do have 16gb.

Not concerned so much with performance, 670 is fine. I've overclocked the core and memory higher than a stock 970, so no issue there.  It's the continually hitting the vram limit that's the issue. My vram usage with no HD mesh is 3.3-3.5gb. As soon as I load any HD mesh, vram jumps to 3.9gb or higher, causing the sim to eventually crash. Not the same issue in 10, but definitely is a issue in 11. Not so bad if I fly in the sticks, but that's not where I fly.

[CarlosF 1,234]

 

 

Huh, never seen a 16gb AMD, or gtx 1060

 

ooops sorry, I meant system RAM, but I see you already have 16g and so disregard comment.

 

Texture quality will tax you video ram and max it out  if you set it to Max (no compression). AFAIK HD mesh only hits you system ram and not video.

[Muskoka 104]

ooops sorry, I meant system RAM, but I see you already have 16g and so disregard comment.

 

Texture quality will tax you video ram and max it out if you set it to Max (no compression). AFAIK HD mesh only hits you system ram and not video.

Not really true, HD mesh hits the whole system, cpu and gpu. I won't go into the details, there explained on Alpilots site. To simplify, anytime you add more visually, your taxing the gpu, and the HD mesh is more than just a change in the elevation of the landscape, as he explains. Besides, I can watch the load on my gpu with the output data on screen, and see an increase with it loaded, vs. not, so we'll end it there.

 

Now, on to the original post. Here's a few screenshots sitting on 24R, at CYYZ. Very "nice" weather, and not much going on in the scene. First shot is with v3 HD mesh loaded, and my vram usage is at 3.940gb, at the max of my card. Nothing else is going on, no stormy weather, not lots of clouds, no ai traffic, nothing. Just not going to cut it once World Traffic 3 comes out, and certainly not if your in heavy weather. So no, 4gb will not be sufficient, if you want to fly heavies at big airports, like I do. Fly in the sticks and you should be fine.

 

The second screenshot is the exact same scenario as above, but with no HD mesh at all. As you can see the vram usage is at 3.805gb, less, but not a lot. Again, I'm sitting here with nothing else going on, no bad weather or traffic. So yes, HD mesh does impact the gpu, it's visually loading more. In this case not a lot, but I can go to another part of the airport and the difference is close to 500mb, that's a fair amount when you only have 4gb to play with. Especially, considering your pushed against the limit of your card already.

 

So, that's why I wanted to know if with the recent improvements for AMD, if their fps were acceptable, meaning close to what my card is doing now. If so then great, all I need is a card with more memory. Then perhaps I could go back to my 3 monitor setup. I can't even think about running a higher resolution when I'm already loading my card to the max as it is. More vram will most definitely help, but only if the fps are there. And when I'm getting 60'ish fps, and the other gentlemen was only getting in the 30's with his AMD card, I'd assume there not ready for regular use yet. But, I thought I'd ask for an exact "sim" comparison and see for sure.

 

***Editing screenshots. Afterburner was showing my map monitor video card, which is my older AMD card, didn't need any confusion. It now is showing my 670.

 

[Jimm 437]

Not really true, HD mesh hits the whole system, cpu and gpu. I won't go into the details, there explained on Alpilots site. To simplify, anytime you add more visually, your taxing the gpu, and the HD mesh is more than just a change in the elevation of the landscape, as he explains. Besides, I can watch the load on my gpu with the output data on screen, and see an increase with it loaded, vs. not, so we'll end it there.

 

Now, on to the original post. Here's a few screenshots sitting on 24R, at CYYZ. Very "nice" weather, and not much going on in the scene. First shot is with v3 HD mesh loaded, and my vram usage is at 3.940gb, at the max of my card. Nothing else is going on, no stormy weather, not lots of clouds, no ai traffic, nothing. Just not going to cut it once World Traffic 3 comes out, and certainly not if your in heavy weather. So no, 4gb will not be sufficient, if you want to fly heavies at big airports, like I do. Fly in the sticks and you should be fine.

 

The second screenshot is the exact same scenario as above, but with no HD mesh at all. As you can see the vram usage is at 3.805gb, less, but not a lot. Again, I'm sitting here with nothing else going on, no bad weather or traffic. So yes, HD mesh does impact the gpu, it's visually loading more. In this case not a lot, but I can go to another part of the airport and the difference is close to 500mb, that's a fair amount when you only have 4gb to play with. Especially, considering your pushed against the limit of your card already.

 

So, that's why I wanted to know if with the recent improvements for AMD, if their fps were acceptable, meaning close to what my card is doing now. If so then great, all I need is a card with more memory. Then perhaps I could go back to my 3 monitor setup. I can't even think about running a higher resolution when I'm already loading my card to the max as it is. More vram will most definitely help, but only if the fps are there. And when I'm getting 60'ish fps, and the other gentlemen was only getting in the 30's with his AMD card, I'd assume there not ready for regular use yet. But, I thought I'd ask for an exact "sim" comparison and see for sure.

 

***Editing screenshots. Afterburner was showing my map monitor video card, which is my older AMD card, didn't need any confusion. It now is showing my 670.

 

While I found your response interesting, your screenshots are way too small to follow.  Even on my large screen at work, I can't make out the stats.

 

You state that the HD mesh is taxing on the gpu, but that also depends on how you have XP rendering everything.  Of course, you also have to consider the ortho factor, whether your orthos are ZL16 or ZL18, which can tax the system too.  I also see that you are using v-sync (the one thing I could clearly see with my old eyes) and from what I have experienced, as well as other folks' responses, v-sync will cap your frames.  I did a test last evening, with and without v-sync and found a 10fps difference.  One final thought, this is still beta, and we have yet to hear from LR, whether the texture optimization has been done yet, which I suspect has not.

[Desaix 235]

Definitely 6GB VRAM will not be enough in a year or two with Xplane. Same as you, I love lot of AI aircraft and that taxes VRAM, O can just see sometimes exceeding 6 GB so  I'm waiting to see price of the 1080 TI as I think its 12 GB VRAM will make me happy for 2/3 years.

[Muskoka 104]

Definitely 6GB VRAM will not be enough in a year or two with Xplane. Same as you, I love lot of AI aircraft and that taxes VRAM, O can just see sometimes exceeding 6 GB so  I'm waiting to see price of the 1080 TI as I think its 12 GB VRAM will make me happy for 2/3 years.

Yes, once 11 get's into full swing, 6gb will be the bare minimum, if you choose to fly in a somewhat fully simulated environment.

 

Sorry you can't see the screenshots Jim, guess you'll just have to trust what I tell you. :wink: V-sync, fully aware of it's "impact", and I'd never run without it. Screen tearing is absolutely horrible. The hit is minimal, compared to the much improved visual quality. Orthos, don't use them. Imagery for most of Canada is terrible, at least where I fly.

 

Some are still missing the point of this post I guess. No need to go off on tangents about setup and the like. I was explicitly seeking "factual numbers" from someone who has an AMD card, not setup advise, it's not needed. I would like to know how much the recent improvements made by Laminar were having with regards to performance. If their fps numbers were even close to what I'm getting with my overclocked 670 with the test I suggested, then great.  I'd get a 8 gb AMD card, and not waste unnecessary money on another over priced Nvidia card. If the numbers aren't there, then perhaps I will have to bite the bullet, and stay with Nvidia. That's all I'm looking for, system setup and the like are well taken care of at this end, no worries there, and don't need to be discussed. 

 

So please, stay to the topic, being the test. If someone has AMD fps numbers, great, if not, that's fine, we don't need to further this discussion.

[Jimm 437]

Yes, once 11 get's into full swing, 6gb will be the bare minimum, if you choose to fly in a somewhat fully simulated environment.

 

Sorry you can't see the screenshots Jim, guess you'll just have to trust what I tell you. :wink: V-sync, fully aware of it's "impact", and I'd never run without it. Screen tearing is absolutely horrible. The hit is minimal, compared to the much improved visual quality. Orthos, don't use them. Imagery for most of Canada is terrible, at least where I fly.

 

Some are still missing the point of this post I guess. No need to go off on tangents about setup and the like. I was explicitly seeking "factual numbers" from someone who has an AMD card, not setup advise, it's not needed. I would like to know how much the recent improvements made by Laminar were having with regards to performance. If their fps numbers were even close to what I'm getting with my overclocked 670 with the test I suggested, then great.  I'd get a 8 gb AMD card, and not waste unnecessary money on another over priced Nvidia card. If the numbers aren't there, then perhaps I will have to bite the bullet, and stay with Nvidia. That's all I'm looking for, system setup and the like are well taken care of at this end, no worries there, and don't need to be discussed. 

 

So please, stay to the topic, being the test. If someone has AMD fps numbers, great, if not, that's fine, we don't need to further this discussion.

If you are adamant about getting factual data from one card to another or making comparisons between competing manufacturers, perhaps your post is better suited for the hardware forum.  Placing this post within the XP General Discussion will always leave you open to opinions and tangent discussions about things mentioned above, like setup environment, comparisons with other people's rigs, etc.  :smile:

[Muskoka 104]

If you are adamant about getting factual data from one card to another or making comparisons between competing manufacturers, perhaps your post is better suited for the hardware forum.  Placing this post within the XP General Discussion will always leave you open to opinions and tangent discussions about things mentioned above, like setup environment, comparisons with other people's rigs, etc.  :smile:

Edited: No, this post is where it belongs. This IS the Xplane forums, the hardware forums here at Avsim are 99% percent of the time related to something other than Xplane, meaning not many users there have the desire to even touch Xplane, let alone know anything about it. If I thought it would be better suited there, I would have posted it there.

 

Doesn't really matter where it is. Fact remains, people should only answer with relevant information, pretty simple if you ask me.

[Jimm 437]

That's up to a moderator to decide if they think it's in the wrong place. Doesn't matter to me where they put it. Fact remains, people should only answer with relevant information, pretty simple if you ask me.

Well that's a fair statement but if we go back to the first post of this thread, you make mention, with apology for hijacking this thread.  Did we miss something here?  You are the OP of this thread, so I don't see where you were hijacking anything.  Next, and this should have been pointed out first, you are having a conversation with someone who has yet to respond.  In fact, I don't see them associated with this thread.

 

Would it be safe to assume that you didn't intend to create a new thread, but contribute to the one you quoted from?

 

In the future, think about your questions and then you can decide where your subsequent post is relevant, so we may save the moderators the trouble of moving threads.  This post is clearly a hardware related question and request.

 

"Edited: No, this post is where it belongs. This IS the Xplane forums, the hardware forums here at Avsim are 99% percent of the time related to something other than Xplane, meaning not many users there have the desire to even touch Xplane, let alone know anything about it. If I thought it would be better suited there, I would have posted it there."

 

Ok, so another words, you thought it best to post your hardware related question within this forum to gain maximum exposure.  That seems like a valid reason, but according to how your initial post reads, it is confusing, or rather, it seems like anyone who reads it is coming in at the middle of a conversation, such is similar to changing the channel on your TV.  Without the entire discussion, a bit is lost.

 

On other thought, I re-read what I wrote in response to your query and I didn't see anything off topic or out of range to the scope in which you stated your post.  There are many factors involved to prove or disprove performance of a gpu, as well as the cpu, memory, storage, etc.  I was merely pointing out the operation of the sim and how it varies, depending on scenery, the complexity of the scenery, the complexity of the textures, etc.  I would honestly consider all of that relevant.  As for the brand of card you use or buy, it is entirely up to you, and as it is evident that LR is working to make both manufacturer's cards compatible, this will take time.