Quote

If the 2080Ti had another 5-6Gb of VRAM you could perhaps understand the price hike. But when it has the same as the 1080Ti but DDR6 compared to DDR5 it's hard to see why it costs so much more.

I could probably answer this question, but I don't want to offend anyone

 

Edited October 26, 20187 yr by Christopher Low

52 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I could probably answer this question, but I don't want to offend anyone

I’m guessing Nvidia decided “let’s see how much we can charge and people will still pay it.”

I’ve just changed the order for the RAM and swapped the 2080Ti for the Nvidia 1080Ti.

Edited October 26, 20187 yr by Ray Proudfoot

11 hours ago, w6kd said:

Ted--in case you run into any trouble with that memory, I did have to bump up the DRAM voltage a little bit on the Asus Maximus XI Hero to get it stable at its XMP II settings (3600-15-15-15-35).  It's rated at 1.35v...took 1.365v on my mobo to put an end to the occasional (once every 2-6 hours) memory error.  Memtest 86+ is your friend.

Thanks for the heads up on this Bob. This is a little disappointing to hear. My current memory, Corsair, allowed me to tighten the timings a little without having to bump the voltage. This will be my first experience with GSkill memory. Perhaps Corsair has more margin in its specs which would explain why most of the GSkill specs look better than those of Corsair. I will be running long tests with Memtest 86+ on each memory stick individually and also combined. I believe this is very important to eliminate the RAM as a source of any issues with the build. 

Ted

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I could probably answer this question, but I don't want to offend anyone

 

Dead easy Chris, they still have lots of 1000 series stock to shift and there is a market segment that will pay pretty much anything for the next new thing.  Its only when both of those are exhausted that we will see any price reduction on the 2000 series at all...  So either, pay up, get the existing model or wait... 😛 K

I would recommend 32gb system memory and at least 8gb video memory.

4 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

From the results I've seen the 2080 was comparable to the 1080Ti in performance in many games but more expensive.

If I had to choose between a 2080 8GB and a 1080Ti 11GB for P3D, I would go with the 1080Ti as the 11GB VRAM is more important.

Cheers, Rob.

6 minutes ago, WarpD said:

I would recommend 32gb system memory and at least 8gb video memory.

Ed, I understand the recommendation of 8GB VRAM but not the 32gb for system RAM.......for P3D anyway. I have never seen my old system with 8gb use more than 5gb of RAM with P3D. I am purchasing parts for a new build and just bought 16 gb of RAM so I am curious as to your thoughts on the need for 32gb.

Ted

9 hours ago, joemiller said:

You need your settings more to the right. They are too low.  😁

Beginning to understand..

It'll be so long before 32 are required... Maybe in 5 years.

29 minutes ago, WarpD said:

I would recommend 32gb system memory and at least 8gb video memory.

I would love to hear your rationale behind that recommendation when 62% appear happy with 16Gb and only 30% have 32Gb.

26 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

If I had to choose between a 2080 8GB and a 1080Ti 11GB for P3D, I would go with the 1080Ti as the 11GB VRAM is more important.

Cheers, Rob.

1080Ti was ordered today replacing the 2080Ti. I’ll be buying the Thrustmaster TPR Pedals with the difference.

The main argument for going to 32 GB of RAM would be longevity.  PCs just aren't making the major performance strides they used to and you might find there is no reason to update for a long time to come- however memory requirements have been on the rise for years now.  I do suggest though that you fill all your memory slots to take advantage of the triple (on my system, which has three 8 GB RAM sticks for a total of 24 GB) or quad channel memory bandwidth.  And although Prepar3D may not often require much over 5 GB of RAM, if you're like me with multiple monitors you're likely running lots of FS related applications on the other monitor, as well as FS related web sites with airport maps, diagrams, etc.  It all adds up.

Last year I was going to build an all new rig this year, but decided to hold out a little longer so I went from 6 GB to 24 GB for about $150 (my system is getting old so memory was cheap), and then added a SSD drive as well to hold Prepar3D, the aircraft, and scenery.  Also upgraded the vide card to a 1070.  Getting a lot of life out of this system. 

I am on the fence about building a new system early next year since I still get good framerates on this rig ("She ain't much to look at kid, but she's got it where it counts").  Although many of you would probably frown at my sliders....let's just say nothing is maxed out....but I read these forums where folks are putting together top of the line rigs and still complaining about performance issues...I personally suspect they are just slamming everything to the right slider-wise and expecting the hardware to handle it.  FSX was the first FS program that upon release it was clearly stated they had future-proofed the product by allowing for settings that the hardware at the time couldn't handle.  I suspect Prepr3D is somewhat like that too - not quite setup to allow all sliders to the right with the current generation of hardware.

I've been reading CPU reviews since 1987, and for a long time it was exciting times.  Today's CPUs are not making the large generational performance gains they once were, and I'm now thinking of waiting to see what Intel's new architecture will be (we've been stuck on the same basic design for many years now), and hopefully they will finally be able to get their die process down to something smaller than 10 nm. 

My vote would be, if you're building an all new rig, I'd go for 32 GB.  Not because you need it TODAY, but you might need more than 16 GB in a few years.  And with 4 memory slots, there isn't anything you can do between 16 and 32 GB without losing bandwidth on the memory channel.

Sorry for the long post.

Thanks,

Mark

 

 

 

GPUs don't just fill the screens - they paint facets and juggle coordinates. The new cards are not going to be much better at filling screens but the are faster at filling facets. So they should do better in P3D with respect to model complexity. If money no object get the new card.

Mark,

Thanks for your thoughts. I have decided for better or worse to go with fast 16Gb RAM comprising 2 8Gb sticks. Two sticks rather than four makes overclocking easier apparently.

I don’t need the extra memory for other programs as most are run on a networked i5 I built myself a couple of years ago. I have a 27” XHD monitor on that PC so there’s plenty of screen space.

I agree CPU power increments are now small compared to ten years ago. Seems like we’ve plateaued with it so LM now need to look at GPU and make improvements there. They have started it but hopefully there’s more to come.

If in 4 years 32Gb is needed I’ll just swap out what I have and buy new. I’d rather do that than buy something I may not need for many years and perhaps not at all.

2 minutes ago, SteveW said:

GPUs don't just fill the screens - they paint facets and juggle coordinates. The new cards are not going to be much better at filling screens but the are faster at filling facets. So they should do better in P3D with respect to model complexity. If money no object get the new card.

Too late old son. I’ve decided to go with the 1080Ti. Speaking to my supplier today they aren’t shifting many 20x0 cards. Not hard to work out why.

Edited October 26, 20187 yr by Ray Proudfoot