Upgrade: GTX 1070 SLI or 32GB Ram

[Cjr60611 31]

Just had a baby so the funds are tight and I have about enough to upgrade my RAM from 16GB to 32GB or, I can purchase another GTX 1070 SC to run SLI on X-plane 11. 

Lots of information online about this topic but I'm feeling like the XP community can offer the best insight as my CPU is solely for XP simming.  

My specs;

ASUS Z87-A  

16GB RAM

Intel i7-4790k

NVIDIA GTX 1070 SC

500GB Samsung SSD

I'm averaging about 20-30 FPS in most urban areas (KLAX, KATL, KMIA) and I'm not looking for large increase in FPS.  Rather, I would like to see the FPS stabilize around 30FPS, if possible.  Would two (2) GTX 1070's allow me to do that with my system?  Or, should I just upgrade RAM?

Any advice would be appreciated!

PS - Don't want to upgrade MoBo at this time so that is not an option...

 

 

 

 

[nikit 20]

Take more RAM,I think XP can't use SLI or Crossfire,you don't need another Gtx 1070.

 

Sorry for my english.

[tutmeister 695]

Yeah I don't think xplane can use sli. I used to run sli for prepar3d and it definitely didn't help with my xplane 10 install back then.

I upgraded my pc since and don't have sli any more so don't have first hand experience with xplane 11 though.

 

Chris 

[Jimm 437]

3 hours ago, Cjr60611 said:

Just had a baby so the funds are tight and I have about enough to upgrade my RAM from 16GB to 32GB or, I can purchase another GTX 1070 SC to run SLI on X-plane 11. 

Lots of information online about this topic but I'm feeling like the XP community can offer the best insight as my CPU is solely for XP simming.  

My specs;

ASUS Z87-A  

16GB RAM

Intel i7-4790k

NVIDIA GTX 1070 SC

500GB Samsung SSD

I'm averaging about 20-30 FPS in most urban areas (KLAX, KATL, KMIA) and I'm not looking for large increase in FPS.  Rather, I would like to see the FPS stabilize around 30FPS, if possible.  Would two (2) GTX 1070's allow me to do that with my system?  Or, should I just upgrade RAM?

Any advice would be appreciated!

PS - Don't want to upgrade MoBo at this time so that is not an option...

 

 

 

 

First off, your system is perfectly fine for running XP11.  Your frames are about average for what you would get in XP11.  If there is any need to be had for an upgrade, increase to 32gb.  Your cpu and gpu are right on target for now.  Urban areas will eat performance for breakfast, so I suggest the increase in RAM, as well as checking your cpu and gpu timings to see where the bottleneck is, then adjust your settings in the sim to try and balance out the timings.  My system is pretty much on par with yours, despite being a laptop, and I get about the same frames as you do in urban areas.  Once you move away from those areas, do your frames increase?

Just to reiterate what the others stated, no, XP11 doesn't use sli, so don't go sumping cash into extra hardware that won't make any difference.  Save as much as you can for the little bundle of joy instead, because that's way more important. 

[Griphos 138]

I don't think increasing RAM will help with FPS either. Indeed, I think the only place additional memory will matter to performance is on the GPU. 16 go of RAM is plenty. 

[Jimm 437]

34 minutes ago, Griphos said:

I don't think increasing RAM will help with FPS either. Indeed, I think the only place additional memory will matter to performance is on the GPU. 16 go of RAM is plenty. 

Increasing system RAM will help, and yes, an increase of gpu RAM helps too.  It's a concerted effort for both the cpu and gpu, to which the fps counter outputs (hence the cpu and gpu timings that should be observed when setting the sliders in the graphics settings of XP).  16gb of system ram is quickly becoming the minimum for XP11, and with the influx of more detailed scenery, airports and aircraft, it's a good idea to upgrade that aspect of the system now, since memory is cheaper right now.  32gb is much better to have, to pad the system for the future.

[Colonel X 1,428]

Unless you are exhausting your RAM, upgrading to 32GB will not give you a single additional FPS. X-Plane 11 (without addons) typically consumes around 8 GB.

[Jimm 437]

Just now, frontendrob said:

Unless you are exhausting your RAM, upgrading to 32GB will not give you a single additional FPS. X-Plane 11 (without addons) typically consumes around 8 GB.

Do you have a reliable source that backs up this statement?

[Colonel X 1,428]

Well, amount of RAM never had an impact on FPS in X-Plane as long as you can supply what X-Plane needs. There simply isn't any correlation. Faster RAM maybe, but more - unused - RAM, there's just no point to it.

[Jimm 437]

11 minutes ago, frontendrob said:

Well, amount of RAM never had an impact on FPS in X-Plane as long as you can supply what X-Plane needs. There simply isn't any correlation. Faster RAM maybe, but more - unused - RAM, there's just no point to it.

And again I ask, where is is documented that more RAM doesn't make a difference?  With the major feature changes with XP11, such as extended DSF, that extra RAM will come in handy.  Unless a user is completely happy with the default ortho (and believe me when I say there is a big difference between default and say, AIPilotX's HD mesh), as well as keeping the number of world objects low, then ok, I concede that low RAM is fine, otherwise, 32gb would be a better option.

I think I can safely say that users of X-Plane have an interest in maintaining a realistic sim, and with that, not using extended DSFs would be selling the user short, because anything beyond the limited distance is a blurry mess.  There has been some suggestion on whether usage of extended DSFs for tubeliner pilots is worth it, and that is up to the individual's desire.  I fly both GA and tube, but for me, I much prefer to see as far out as I can.

[CarlosF 1,235]

1 minute ago, Jimm said:

where is is documented that more RAM doesn't make a difference?

 

And where is it documented that it does make a difference?

I agree fronendrob, there is no correlation between more ram and raw performance. XPlane in regards to raw performance is CPU/GPU bound, whichever the case may be.

[Griphos 138]

The original post asked for advice for increasing FPS.  System RAM is not connect to FPS in any direct way (and performance enhancement in RAM comes more from clock speed rather than amount).  If you have 4 gb of RAM, then you will be using swap files a great deal with just about any program, and that will certainly impact performance.  But the difference between 8gb and 16 gb in many, many tests is marginal.  FPS is a function of CPU clock speed and GPU power (and memory).   

Here's an interesting evaluation from about half a year ago:

http://www.techspot.com/article/1043-8gb-vs-16gb-ram/

 

[Griphos 138]

And I don't get the memory is cheap argument.  Dog chew toys are cheap.  But I wouldn't buy a bunch to improve performance on my flight sim, because they don't have anything to do with that performance.  RAM you're not using (and it's not clear anything over 8 gb is needed) doesn't either.

Draw distance and higher resolution mesh certainly puts a load on the GPU, and takes up more VRAM, as indicated by the developer and the in-system settings.  Having as much VRAM as possible makes a real difference.  But those aspects of the sim are GPU bound, not even CPU bound, and so system RAM isn't involved.  The number of objects is CPU bound, so more objects take more processing power to display at good rates; but it's not clear that having max objects occupies that much RAM.  

[Jimm 437]

17 minutes ago, Griphos said:

The original post asked for advice for increasing FPS.  System RAM is not connect to FPS in any direct way (and performance enhancement in RAM comes more from clock speed rather than amount).  If you have 4 gb of RAM, then you will be using swap files a great deal with just about any program, and that will certainly impact performance.  But the difference between 8gb and 16 gb in many, many tests is marginal.  FPS is a function of CPU clock speed and GPU power (and memory).   

Here's an interesting evaluation from about half a year ago:

http://www.techspot.com/article/1043-8gb-vs-16gb-ram/

 

Oddly enough, I found nothing in that article about simulators.

[Paraffin 2,197]

48 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

 

And where is it documented that it does make a difference?

I agree fronendrob, there is no correlation between more ram and raw performance. XPlane in regards to raw performance is CPU/GPU bound, whichever the case may be.

It's documented by Laminar in the minimum and recommended specs, on their web site. Minimum is 8 GB. Recommended is 16-24 GB or more. Laminar wouldn't specify that if they didn't mean it, for current applications like HD mesh and UHD mesh and whatever they have planned during the XP11 cycle.

Try running the UHD mesh with 8 GB of RAM...