Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hassan

Big FPS problem with xplane 11 on my computer

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, HumptyDumpty said:

THe possibility that reducing graphics has no impact on performance could be because the sim is falling on the CPU. 

But as Murmur has said get a good GPU.

 

 

Edited by Robert Markusic
updated info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HumptyDumpty said:

THe possibility that reducing graphics has no impact on performance could be because the sim is falling on the CPU. 

But as Murmur has said get a good GPU.

 

To note additionally that Hassan has i7 and low framerate as me on i3, it is a bit odd, to be hardware related. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robert Markusic said:

If you compare GT630 in FLOPS its matches about onboard Intel HD630. Classes matches names. Check for RX550 as they may be rebranded on different names by NVidia. The X-plane says for GPU, minimum setting intel HD2000, recommended HD4000 and above, so HD630 is much above. For the onboard is only different VRAM that is in this case likely used from RAM.

The HD630 has about half the benchmark score of the Geforce GT 1030, that is the cheapest (70$) current card, and around 1/8 of the mid range GTX 1060. So I don't think you can expect a lot from that card.

Maybe in your case the CPU is also the bottleneck, I don't know.

In any case, XP is going to Vulkan in one year or so, so a Vulkan compatible card will probably be a de-facto requirement in the near future.

14 minutes ago, Robert Markusic said:

To note additionally that Hassan has i7 and low framerate as me on i3, it is a bit odd, to be hardware related. 

What videocard is he using? Screen resolution? AA settings?

 


"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." [Abraham Lincoln]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robert Markusic said:

As the x-plane is initially made for 32-bit system or the memory up to 3 GB, so it makes no sense why 8 GB in 64-bit PC may not be enough. 

Yes its got some better graphics, but if my PC is the latest edition from last year, not by Celeron, but i3, it is not to expect only 13fps! It should have setting for at least 25 fps, for present PC systems.

But I may notice many people have issue with FPS, so it may very likely be to software. Hope that Lamminar research is not sponsored by hardware manufacturers! :-) 

You can try to discuss it away as much as you want .... But X-Plane is simply an extremely GPU hungry simulator! And for good reasons. At high settings it is pushing trough millions of triangles, computes a lot of shadows, computes reflections and so om with a lot off effects and shaders applied (which is technically quite far away what FSX was capable of - of course, that is an old sim, so its normal that with time it gets surpassed).

Laminar already gives you a lot of scaling down options .... which they included exactly for the reason to make it halfway usable on lower and hardware too. But this doesn't means that it can run on everything. And any current integrated Intel graphics can only be good enough for lowest end visuals (so you can see those recommendations as a minimum - not as an "everything will look nice"). Like it or not. And this will not change much ... X-Plane is already quite nicely optimized (otherwise not even high end hardware would be capable of handling this amount of visualization).

Also .... as you already pointed out yourself: integrated graphics usually need to use the normal RAM instead of VRAM. And quite often, the "normal" RAM is slower than VRAM. Also: this RAM has to be used for everything else too like your Operating System, other background software AND X-Plane itself. So, if alone X-plane and the OS, and other software eats up 4-6 (or more!) GB of RAM, then there is not much left over for VRAM. And even 2Gbof VRAM is relatively low when it comes to X-Plane (but should work if you dial down everything in the rendering settings).

Finally. X-Plane 11 is a pure 64bit application (the previous XP10 had a 32bit version ... but not XP11)! So, of course it can use much more than 4GB RAM! With extremely high resolution scenery it can even fill up 32GB of RAM.

So: as everybody told already .... Yes, XP11 can run (at low res and low FPS) on an internal GPU ... but it will always be strongly limited. For good performance and nice visuals it is impossible to go without some dedicated, higher performance graphic cards (AMD or Nvidia).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert Markusic said:

If you compare GT630 in FLOPS its matches about onboard Intel HD630. Classes matches names. Check for RX550 as they may be rebranded on different names by NVidia. The X-plane says for GPU, minimum setting intel HD2000, recommended HD4000 and above, so HD630 is much above. For the onboard is only different VRAM that is in this case likely used from RAM. 

As the x-plane is initially made for 32-bit system or the memory up to 3 GB, so it makes no sense why 8 GB in 64-bit PC may not be enough. 

Yes its got some better graphics, but if my PC is the latest edition from last year, not by Celeron, but i3, it is not to expect only 13fps! It should have setting for at least 25 fps, for present PC systems.

But I may notice many people have issue with FPS, so it may very likely be to software. Hope that Lamminar research is not sponsored by hardware manufacturers! :-) 

I have never till date bought any hardware using a benchmark , The RX550 (It's an AMD GPU ) which is slower than the RX460. 

XP is high on GPU too, minimum requirement mentioned would be at minimum settings too., onboard card may not perform like a dedicated one with the same FLOPS or whatever it's called its not necessary and Intel GPU don't shine.

You can run XP11 in 4 GB ( I run with 5 GB DDR2 ) but when it comes to scenery like HD Mesh and high Zoomlevel Orthos RAM and VRAM will matter.

Yes X-plane software is bad , the other one is nicer.

 

 


Ryzen 5 1600x - 16GB DDR4 - RTX 3050 8GB - MSI Gaming Plus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert Markusic said:

That would be interesting to hear, comparation of onboard to external graphics card in fps, of users who have both. 

Like for example this gigantic benchmark set?

Some values (PassMark G3D):

  • Intel HD 630 : 1177
  • Radeon RX 550 : 3545
  • Radeon RX 460 : 4326
  • Nvidia GTX 1060 : 8836
  • Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti : 13717

And this PassMark is a very generic bench mark (quite likely not covering many things the X-Plane rendering engine does), which might not reflect all high end 3D features (features which an Intel HD 630 might not even be able to render reasonably).

But you see, that an Intel HD 630 might be note a high-end card.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert Markusic said:

That would be interesting to hear, comparation of onboard to external graphics card in fps, of users who have both. 

Try this site.  You can plug in two graphics cards at a time and compare them when X-Plane 11 is plugged in also.  Doesn't cover everything, but close.

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=3505&gid2=1792&compare=geforce-gtx-1070-vs-geforce-gtx-770-msi-twinfrozr-edition

John


John Wingold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks it is interesting in benchmarks, but the measure would be specific fps in the game, I.e who has upgraded to external card, may test with both. I have shrinked x-plane to desktop, so resolution is minimal, it works at 16 fps plane on ground, task manager shows, CPU at 50%, memory at 70% and GPU at 86%. So why it does not increase the framerate? Programs used so far never stutter if CPU or other usage is less then 100%. Could set capture but here is no upload file option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have seen this discussion before. X-plane is mainly single thread, a second thread is used to preload tiles. You will rarely see cpu more then 50%because of this. Gpu will not reach 100% because it must wait for the processor. Either way, on board graphics are way less powerfully and will not be able to run xplane at full settings,also because they share resources with the cpu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Robert Markusic said:

it works at 16 fps plane on ground, task manager shows, CPU at 50%, memory at 70% and GPU at 86%. So why it does not increase the framerate? Programs used so far never stutter if CPU or other usage is less then 100%. Could set capture but here is no upload file option. 

Because it doesn´t work this way in reality. Often enough components have to wait since they don´t have the data available yet. A HD 630 hast to use the extremly slow system RAM compared to the VRAM on real graphics cards. X-Plane 11 can easily demand more than 4 GB VRAM, the HD 630 has none, so the GPU is always waiting. In fact in reality you would NEVER get to 100% CPU or GPU load if they would show real values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is all theoretically possible, but it still does not answer, why change of rendering option from HDR10 down to minimum or 4 steps down does not effect framerate, it always remains about 16 fps despite it is the main factor in performance.

Is there some tool that could analyze the performance and determine exactly if the bottleneck is CPU or GPU, is it VRAM or is it RAM?

If the GPU is added it also matter which, for the best performance they recommend GTX1070 and more that is very expensive about 350 Euros at local market, but there is also GTX 1030 that is about 170 Euros. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing theoratical behind it. If your GPU has to swap, you are done! The way the internal GPU is implemented already kills the performance. And I wouldn´t recommend a Graphics card below a 1060 with 6GB VRAM.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said earlier the change in rendering might not have any effect because it might be throwing the stuff to the CPU,  your onboard Intel GPU does not have enough bandwidth or memory even if its shared and that is the worst and I said Intel GPU don't shine.

XP is hard on the GPU , the objects / trees etc. are extremely hard on the CPU.  

Maybe when Vulkan code is released for XP you may find better performance with your current setup.

Also I mentioned delete the preferences and let XP reset it and see if it makes any difference. 

 This is what I am using :  I do have a Q8200 but the G41 board is burnt so using this now

AMD Phenom X4 810 (default clock speed)

5 GB DDR2 

Nvidia GT630 2GB (this might get replaced with an AMD RX 550)

 I keep XP11 settings like Objects = Medium / Reflections = LOW / AA = (using NVidia FXAA from the NV Panel / Visual Effects = HDR 

Now given the complexity of the scenario like aircraft / weather / terrain / objects the performance varies. its between 15-30 and sometimes even 11 fps.

 The CPU for me goes max and so does the GPU.

Are you trying some kinda benchmark to prove one sim is better than the other ?

Comparing an onboard against a dedicated one Is foolish , there is a reason for having a dedicated card .

In DCS / il2 if I switch off HDR I have no performance gains. 

Either you get a decent GPU else I feel FSX is better for you.  


Ryzen 5 1600x - 16GB DDR4 - RTX 3050 8GB - MSI Gaming Plus

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  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...