Recommended Posts

I'm itching to upgrade a little bit but there is only I so much I can do with the current board. I was thinking about getting a 1080ti and a 4k monitor.

Seem like a reasonable thing to do our am I going to run into a bottleneck?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

4K is incredibly demanding on the graphics card and you don't really see the benefits unless your monitor is 32"+. 1440p at 27" is a nice compromise and will run on a GTX980 (as I am doing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, ckyliu said:

4K is incredibly demanding on the graphics card and you don't really see the benefits unless your monitor is 32"+. 1440p at 27" is a nice compromise and will run on a GTX980 (as I am doing).

PMFJI. You’re running at a resolution I’m considering once a 64-bit version of Concorde is available.

Increasing the workload by a factor of 4 will surely have an impact on FPS or will it with my card, a 1080?

That’s why I’m considering a AOC 32” 2560*1440 monitor which increases workload by a more reasonable 77% and seems a decent compromise.

https://www.scan.co.uk/products/315-aoc-q3279vwf-wqhd-freesync-monitor-mva-2560x1440-75hz-169-5ms-20m1-displayport-hdmi-dvi-vga?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1fXH2cK82wIV1uFRCh2DeQuCEAQYAiABEgIE2_D_BwE

Edited by Ray Proudfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Ray As you said you are rendering 4x the pixels going from 1080p to 2160p (4k) so you'll almost certainly see a significant FPS drop regardless of your hardware; how much will depend on existing GPU, graphics memory and CPU utilisation. i.e. if you're only using 40% of those now there's lots of spare capacity to increase resolution, if you're using 85% already then you're going to see a performance drop (you can track usage with GPU-Z).

I've got a GTX980 4GB and I'm almost maxing it's graphics memory at 1440p, along with my 4.5 GHz processor and it won't maintain 30 fps unless I start to dial things back a little (you can see my settings in a screenshot I posted in the thread linked to at the bottom). 32" is probably the limit for 1440p, if you go any bigger it's going to start looking fuzzy or blocky.

You can use nVidia DSR to simulate the effect of having a higher resolution, but I found in practise the performance hit with the actual 1440p monitor was more than DSR led me to believe, although that could be because I retained my 1080p monitor for desktop stuff. But it will at least give you an idea.

 

Edited by ckyliu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @ckyliu, I have tried that Nvidia DSR test but with Concorde over central London I was running out of VAS so it wasn’t very helpful. I always want to test in the most demanding areas because if the hardware can cope there it can cope anywhere.

Given I have an i7 and a 1080 it should be able to cope if your system can. I fly a Learjet 25 and Carenado PC12 but Concorde is the most demanding.

I’m in no hurry as it will be a few months before Concorde is available and I don’t plan on getting v4 until it is.

I’m currently using a Sony 32” FullHD TV which is just about okay resolution wise but felt the jump to 4K was too great to maintain decent performance. Hence the compromise with QHD.

Good point abusing GPU-X for monitoring. I’ll give it a shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The performance gain I got going from a 1070 to a 1080ti on a 1920x1200 monitor was pretty much wiped away when i went to a 1440P monitor under gpu intensive loads ....i run pretty high settings.

I think some here will say that the1080ti in SLI is needed if you want to play P3Dv4 at 4K with the settings one might use at 1080p.

Edited by FunknNasty
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Ray Proudfoot No problems. Didn't realise you were running 32 bit still, I would upgrade to P3Dv4 before doing monitor resolution and potentially hardware upgrades as you will probably find v4 more efficient and you require extra VAS at =>1440p anyway.

Your system will definitely cope, it's just how much you'll have to sacrifice in the graphics settings to get a decent framerate.

Edited by ckyliu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now I am running 2560*1440. on a 27" 2k monitor. The main reason I want to go 4k is to get a larger monitor. As mentioned, I 27" is a good size for 2560*1440, but 4K would be needed if I went much larger.

Share this post


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

The performance gain I got going from a 1070 to a 1080ti on a 1920x1200 monitor were pretty much wiped away when i went to a 1440P monitor under gpu intensive loads ....i run pretty high settings.

I think some here will say that the1080ti in SLI is needed if you want to play P3Dv4 at 4K with the settings one might use at 1080p.

Might that be down to your i5 processor? Perhaps a bit of a mismatch?

45 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

@Ray Proudfoot No problems. Didn't realise you were running 32 bit still, I would upgrade to P3Dv4 before doing monitor resolution and potentially hardware upgrades as you will probably find v4 more efficient and you require extra VAS at =>1440p anyway.

Your system will definitely cope, it's just how much you'll have to sacrifice in the graphics settings to get a decent framerate.

The unknown factor is how better FPS might be in v4. I might get it before Concorde comes out because I want it long term even FSL don’t release it for whatever reason.

Most of my flying is IFR so loads of antigen don’t interest me. Detailed coastlines are nice plus busy airports with plenty of Ai.

35 minutes ago, duckbilled said:

Right now I am running 2560*1440. on a 27" 2k monitor. The main reason I want to go 4k is to get a larger monitor. As mentioned, I 27" is a good size for 2560*1440, but 4K would be needed if I went much larger.

32” seems to be the max size for 2K but that’s not a problem for me as I have that size TV for FullHD. 4K starts at 27” but text would be a nightmare at that size. Probably 40” minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, duckbilled said:

Right now I am running 2560*1440. on a 27" 2k monitor. The main reason I want to go 4k is to get a larger monitor. As mentioned, I 27" is a good size for 2560*1440, but 4K would be needed if I went much larger.

Man, I think Ron is considering something that your looking for. I think one could get away with a 32" 2K without significant compromise in picture quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FunknNasty said:

Man, I think Ron is considering something that your looking for. I think one could get away with a 32" 2K without significant compromise in picture quality.

Makes me wonder if I would notice the difference between 1080 and 2k on my 27".

I don't have sliders all the way right, but I do have a lot going on in the sim - lots of ai, Active Sky (no 4096 clouds), lots of add on scenery, ORBX stuff. I do get some slow loading textures and choppy performance from time to time.

I'm really just trying to find a way to improve things without a complete rebuild. Bigger monitor. new GPU or more memory are the only things I can think of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Might that be down to your i5 processor? Perhaps a bit of a mismatch?

 

With all do respect Ray, I think you missed the point of my post.

Edited by FunknNasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, FunknNasty said:

With all do respect Ray, I think you missed the point of my post.

You said “The performance gain I got going from a 1070 to a 1080ti on a 1920x1200 monitor was pretty much wiped away when i went to a 1440P monitor under gpu intensive loads ....i run pretty high settings.”

My point was the 1080i is the fastest graphics card available so any reduction in performance could well be down to the CPU running out of grunt. The 1080i is more than capable of running in 4K but it needs to be paired with a powerful i7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well my 4GB GTX980 (with a mild overclock) is the bottleneck on my i5@4.5GHz system because P3Dv4 really leans on the graphics card a helluva lot more than FSX ever did. I am GPU limited despite my processor being from 2011.

The 1080ti is a crazy expensive card though. I wouldn't bother with SLI as I don't believe it works all that well with P3D, certainly not for what it costs.

Edited by ckyliu
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You said “The performance gain I got going from a 1070 to a 1080ti on a 1920x1200 monitor was pretty much wiped away when i went to a 1440P monitor under gpu intensive loads ....i run pretty high settings.”

My point was the 1080i is the fastest graphics card available so any reduction in performance could well be down to the CPU running out of grunt. The 1080i is more than capable of running in 4K but it needs to be paired with a powerful i7.

Don't have my calculator if front of me but if I had it would it show us the pixel counts of 4k vs 2k vs 1080p.

Now, while the calculator will not tell us why the pixel count is important to know we can you use those numbers as a starting point in our quest to research why it is important. 🙂

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That’s why I’m considering a AOC 32” 2560*1440 monitor which increases workload by a more reasonable 77% and seems a decent compromise.

Ray, I have an AOC 32" QHD monitor (Q3277PQU) and my system runs comfortably (6700k at stock speed and GTX 1080) at that resolution.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @vortex681, you probably remember it was you who recommended that monitor to me.

Since then I bought a BenQ 27” QHD for photo work and love the quality so I’m thinking of the BenQ 32” QHD. More money but it has better build quality.

I guess you’re running P3D v4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

so I’m thinking of the BenQ 32” QHD. More money but it has better build quality.

I don't know which BenQ monitor you're looking at but my AOC P3277PQU is exceptionally well built - better (and cheaper) than the BenQ 32" model I looked at when I was shopping around. It's still available for about £380.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

I don't know which BenQ monitor you're looking at but my AOC P3277PQU is exceptionally well built - better (and cheaper) than the BenQ 32" model I looked at when I was shopping around. It's still available for about £380.

Ah, you have a different monitor to the one I was looking at on Scan. There's a substantial price difference which is why I wasn't attracted to Q3279VWF at £199.95.

However I have now found yours - Q3277PQU which is almost twice the price at £383. Why?

Perhaps MVA versus AMVA and an adjustable height on the more expensive one together with a USB3 hub.

Oh, and 31.5" versus 32". :biggrin:

That one seems similar in quality to the BenQ PD3200Q 32" at £440 although that is only a VA panel - lesser quality than MVA and AMVA. Odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/6/2018 at 7:17 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

That one seems similar in quality to the BenQ PD3200Q 32" at £440 although that is only a VA panel - lesser quality than MVA and AMVA. Odd.

I'm struggling to find it now, but when I bought mine there was a web site which said that the panel manufacturer and model number for the AOC Q3277PQU and the BenQ PD3200Q was the same (I think it may have been made by AU Optronics). They were both released at the same time and, based on the panel info, I bought the AOC monitor because it was a much better deal at the time. There was also a Samsung 32" QHD monitor released at the same time as the other two which also had the same panel but flickered at low brightness levels which is why I took it off my wishlist.

Edit: Ignore the above! It was a different BenQ monitor (the BL3200PT). I found the link for the original web page I used: https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/comparison/5875110ca

Edited by vortex681

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vortex,

Useful site. Agreed that there's little or nothing between the AOC and BenQ except a slightly different stand. £60 difference at Scan but the AOC is not in stock.

I've just done some tests using my QHD BenQ plugged into my P3D machine. Interesting findings.

At EGLC Rwy 28 slew up to 1500ft and turn to heading of 250 to point towards EGLL in the distance. Slew the aircraft (Lear 25 for me) to a speed of 160kts to simulate VFR or IFR approach.

I did it twice - once in windowed res (2560*1440) and the second time in full-screen (1920*1080).

Max GPU load was 41% in both tests flying over central London and beyond.

Avg FPS was 23.3 in 1920*1080 and 22.4 in 2560*1440.

It looks like my 1080 can handle the increased res with ease. I have a UHD TV downstairs. I'm going to have to take the PC down there and try a 4K test. If it's not substantially worse then I would be tempted to a 4K monitor. The only problem is there's a huge gap after 32" with the next coming in at 40 (Iiyama) but generally 43" and that is too big to accommodate.

So perhaps I'm best sticking at 32" QHD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vortex681,

I'm back again after doing more tests and reading reviews. I connected my BenQ 27" QHD display to P3D and ran my EGLC to EGLL test which slews at 160kts at 1500ft over central London and then over Aerosoft Heathrow. This is a good test of autogen and Ai in a very complex area.

The increased resolution of QHD over Full HD didn't blow me away when I looked at the Learjet panel. Instruments were slightly sharper but not so much that it impressed me. The GPU load during that test remained around 40% peaking briefly around 48%. According to FSUIPC the average fps for that test was 27.7.

Tonight I changed that setting in Nvidia Control Panel that allowed me to run Windows at 3840*2160. I ran the same test and noted the GPU topped out around 50% (mainly in the 40s) but the average fps dropped only slightly to 25.6.

This has convinced me that my current hardware can support a 4K display. The increase of resolution from Full HD is 400% compared to a very modest 77% with QHD and the 1080 is more than capable of delivering 4K.

If I find my fps are struggling I can always reduce Autogen setting and Ai %. Ai especially eats a lot of fps.

Buying a monitor is a long-term investment for me. I had my Dell 24" 1920*1200 for 11 years and it cost me £500. The BenQ I'm looking at is more but when inflation is taken into account is probably cheaper than the Dell.

And in a few years 4K will become the norm as graphics card continue to improve. I believe if I bought the QHD monitor I'd regret it in less than a year. That's not criticising your decision as we all have different requirements.

There are very few 32" 4K monitors available but the BenQ 32" PD3200U ticks all the boxes for me. I'm not interested in larger as my desk space couldn't take it.

Until FS Labs release a 64-bit Concorde I'm going to have to fly it at 1920*1080 in P3D v3.4. I'll have to reduce my Windows resolution on the BenQ but the downscaling shouldn't degrade the image too much.

Having given it a great deal of thought I'm happy with the decision I've reached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you've arrived at a good decision. I got my QHD monitor when I still had a GTX 970 and I didn't think that it would be too successful running at 4k with the sort of detail I wanted. That said, I'm happy with my setup which is just as well as I've no plans on upgrading the monitor for the foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vortex, thanks. I'm sure you gave the same amount of thought when you bought yours. Unlike other bits of kit monitors usually last several changes of computer and are long-term investments.

I'm sure yours will give you years of good service. When I first started running FS back in the 90s 800*600 was the norm and 1024*768 was really special.

I've been running 1920*1200 since 2006 (FS95?) with a 7800GTX (768Mb of RAM) switching to 1920*1080 in 2013 when I switched to a Sony 32" Full HD TV.

So this will be the first increase in resolution for for me for 12 years. :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW I have been running my sims (FSX & P3D) at 4K for nearly two years first on a 770 and currently a 980ti with minimal issues.  Provided you are sensible with slider settings frames are mostly 20 - 30 with usual suspect high end aircraft and scenery around terminal areas but much better at altitude. Now heavy weather can make things more difficult but this is manageable.  

Bruceb

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