Avidean

Will V5 Performance be still single thread dependent?

Recommended Posts

Straight forward question! I wonder if I can get an answer. I asked over on the P3D forum too. I think it might be important for anyone planning a new system right now with the intention that will be that for 5 years except for perhaps a GPU Upgrade in the middle.

Right now I an running an i7 4770k at 4.8ghz. It owes me nothing but since I switched to VR i am struggling to get over 30fps with setting I can live with.

I see that LM have certainly put the other cores to use with cores 3 and 4 also at 100% or close to it. Core 2 seems to hover between low usage and about 50%

So we all know that FSX/P3D is limited by the main thread so the faster the core that runs the main thread the better your performance all other components being up to the task.

Will this be the same with V5 or will that main thread be broken up making the program no longer single core performance dependent.

If that were the case, would it make a difference to the CPU that anyone building now would chose?

Edited by Avidean

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I'm pretty sure that anybody answering doesn't know and anybody who knows can't answer.  Prolly when LM starts advertising v5, then they'll say.

I do see lots of ppl building i9-9900K systems, though.

Share this post


Link to post

i want to know this to 🙂 16 core threadripper or 8 core intel is the name of the game. 🙂

but as buffy foster says till the NDA is not lifted nobody can or will tell it to us.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with threadripper  is it`s not intended for gaming the new AMD CPUs to be released this year are.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, rjfry said:

The problem with threadripper  is it`s not intended for gaming the new AMD CPUs to be released this year are.

That`s true but P3D is not realy "Gaming" 🙂 And if P3D will move towards more multi core it can happen that 16 Cores with 4.5 Ghz are more powerful then 8 cores with 5 Ghz. 

So the information is realy interesting for people which plan to build systems which should last some years.

16 Cores would be nice so you can give P3D 8 Cores and still have 8 cores for addons, windows ..... 

Currently i`m using an old 4770 with 32 GB RAM and a GTX 1070 and the system can maintain about 20 - 25 FPS in "most" situation only not when approaching EGLL or other dense area`s ( Flytampa EHAM with True Earth installed). 

When i think that this system is nearly 5 years old and i cannot oc it so i only have 3,8 Ghz and still DDR3 RAM.  I would not imagine what a 16 Core with current IPC and 4,2 - 4,5 Ghz and fast quad channel DDR4 is able to do when P3D uses more cores by default. 

And for sure currently a 9900K with 5,2 Ghz is also already a powerful system. But the price diference between Intel 8 and AMD 16 is about 300 EUR`s where i live. 

So when lookhed martin moves to more multi the 300 EUR are worth every penny.

 

 

Edited by 331BK
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think LM should just stick with 4.X until they build a new flight simulator on an up to date engine. Yes we would all have to purchase licenses again for all of our addons, but it would remove a lot of headaches and performance issues many are having. Its time LM moved on from the extremely outdated engine they currently use. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Avidean said:

Straight forward question! I wonder if I can get an answer. I asked over on the P3D forum too. I think it might be important for anyone planning a new system right now with the intention that will be that for 5 years except for perhaps a GPU Upgrade in the middle.

Right now I an running an i7 4770k at 4.8ghz. It owes me nothing but since I switched to VR i am struggling to get over 30fps with setting I can live with.

I see that LM have certainly put the other cores to use with cores 3 and 4 also at 100% or close to it. Core 2 seems to hover between low usage and about 50%

So we all know that FSX/P3D is limited by the main thread so the faster the core that runs the main thread the better your performance all other components being up to the task.

Will this be the same with V5 or will that main thread be broken up making the program no longer single core performance dependent.

If that were the case, would it make a difference to the CPU that anyone building now would chose?

The best way I can answer this is to study the other simulators you have on your system. If you have flyinside simulator, look at the way it allocates cores. It has been built from the ground up with latest multi-threaded concepts so you could safely use it as a bench mark. If you notice that even in flyinside, there is one core doing more work than the rest, you will know that it is necessary. The only way you can test that though is to compare flyinside simulator with HT-ON and HT-OFF. This is because the main thread has to manage more cores and in P3D it becomes more busy with more cores. But does flyinside? P3D can only move toward the same direction as Flyinside if it ever does assuming that Flyinside is already future design tech. After all, there is a an optimal solution to balancing cores in a flight simulator and P3D might iterate toward it.

I think a safe bet is that single core performance will continue to matter less, and more cores will continue to matter more. There will be an optimal number of cores for a simulator. I suspect that number is somewhere between 8-16 cores. At the moment it is probably 6 maybe 8.

Since the 9900k is a good compromise between single core and multicore performance, the 9900k will probably be good for a few years. Once multicore really evolves and the new core optimum is somewhere around 8-16, your hypothetical CPU would become old at that point.

I'm guessing though. But the flyinside comparison would be useful for you to do so as to possibly "glimpse the future".

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, shamrockflyer said:

I think LM should just stick with 4.X until they build a new flight simulator on an up to date engine. Yes we would all have to purchase licenses again for all of our addons, but it would remove a lot of headaches and performance issues many are having. Its time LM moved on from the extremely outdated engine they currently use. 

While I agree in principle, i'm not sure we'll see that happen anytime soon, if ever....

LM is primarily a global security, defense, and aerospace company. They are also the world's largest defense contractor, so that's where their focus is, not on making consumer PC based flight simulators. 

I would venture to say that P3D is but a miniscule blip on LM's corporate radar.....

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, shamrockflyer said:

I think LM should just stick with 4.X until they build a new flight simulator on an up to date engine. Yes we would all have to purchase licenses again for all of our addons, but it would remove a lot of headaches and performance issues many are having. Its time LM moved on from the extremely outdated engine they currently use. 

With P3D 4.4, it's sure not performing like an outdated engine.  Whatever they're doing, keep it up.

Share this post


Link to post

The new RyzenCPUs will be 8 cores first then a 16 core to follow, they will not have the latency lag of threadripper that`s more for multi tasking, how the new CPUs perform we will have to wait and see when the testers get them. A new P3D engine I suspect would take more then just a few years some of the big game studios take years of development for a new game, and don't forget what P3D is designed for if gets the job done why change, eye candy is nice but that's not it`s main purpose.

Edited by rjfry

Share this post


Link to post

LM has publically mentioned that a new rendering engine would be a next step. They didn’t confirm anything but they have referenced it.  A modern rendering engine would put more on the GPU (probably see more autogen and ai being pushed there) and take some stress off the CPU but the newer faster processor will still always provide some advantages.  Is it worth the cost would be the bigger question. 

Also the whole core thing has a limit. The main core still has to manage those cores and not everything can be threaded so at some point in real time the main core will limit the CPU to some extent. I am sure use of other cores will always get better but it’s not a magic fix. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, shamrockflyer said:

but it would remove a lot of headaches and performance issues many are having

Because?
Does XP11 have performance issues? Yes.
My guess is that flight simulators (and other complex simulations) always will have certain performance issues, because they continue to stretch hardware to the limits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

You also have to take into account the user, example the 20 series GPU requires WIN10 and DX12 if you change the specs for P3D you could shut some present users out, and it`s unlikely that companies that use P3D will change there hardware, they don't like upgrading it cost. 

Share this post


Link to post

Hopefully V5 will have a new engine.

In the mean time with future V4.x versions making more use of the GPU and less of the CPU might help a bit ..

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, shamrockflyer said:

Its time LM moved on from the extremely outdated engine they currently use. 

The "outdated FSX engine" is an old myth. The ESP engine was more or less completley rewritten over the years.

There will be NEVER Hardware which can run high-sophisticated Flightsims like P3D or XP on full settings with high fps, period.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

If you think a second about what the updated yet old engine is capable of, it is pretty amazing not to say phenomenal. Just do not forget, what this engine is capable of: a seamingless streaming of the whole globe with a rather huge amount of buildings, trees and sceneries. This with a more than reasonable framerate on current systems. New sceneries including PBR look amazing and provide graphics never seen before in a ESP based flightsim. Even without PBR, if you walk around EDDK or other very recent high-quality sceneries, what do we want more?

In the end, I am not that sure that everbody's praise for a new engine will result in a v5 that makes people more happy than now. If you take other current games: the better the graphics, the more demanding it is on the hardware. It is still like this. Means: playing multiplayer shooter like Battlefield V, the CPU is still utterly important. A 8 core with a very strong single core performance still outperforms an 8 core with worse single-core performance and core numbers still do not totally compensate for single-core performance, as today's situation shows with AMD Ryzen CPUs having more cores but less single-core performance still have lower FPS in most games compared to the high-clocked Intel variants.

Means: while a totally new engine in v5 might improve multicore performance further and makes a fast GPU even more important, as soon as you have this GPU power, it will come down to the processor speed again. Or, on the other hand, if you have a v5 engine that results in a constant GPU limit, what did we gain? The only consequence will be: instead of a race for better and faster CPUs, we will be on the same train as for any other game: race for faster GPU. And this will cost more in the end, as long as fast GPU's are that expensive as they are now. Do we really want an engine that needs a xx80Ti card for 1000$ or more to run nice? Or should we be happy with the fact that a 500$ CPU provides better results over a 300$ CPU?

In the end, flightsimming as we know from the ESP based simulator will always need the best possible computer hardware. No matter if it is mainly CPU based or GPU based. With a 08/15 rig you will have to turn down those sliders, I am pretty sure that will be the same in v5.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Chris,

Thanks for fighting the good fight against misinformation, but the people that you are addressing in this thread don't really care about the facts. They just have their opinions about P3d and those will never change. A sampling...

LM is a big aerospace contractor and doesn't care about either flight simming or P3d.
The P3d graphics engine is old and the same as the one in FSX. 
P3d doesn't use multiple CPU cores.
A new graphics engine would solve everything, just look at FlysInside's sim and Aerofly FS2.

Of course, none of these statements are anything but tired out opinions from people who apparently think that a modern flight sim loaded up with 3rd party add-ons should run  at 100 FPS on a 5 year old PC at maxed out image quality settings.

Jay

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Why not simply enjoy v4.4. 

Instead of worrying about the future..

Who predicted that MS would dump fsx?

  • Like 6
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

 

Of course, none of these statements are anything but tired out opinions from people who apparently think that a modern flight sim loaded up with 3rd party add-ons should run  at 100 FPS on a 5 year old PC at maxed out image quality settings.

Jay

Don't recall Anyone in this thread saying anything remotely like that, so if were are going to starting pointing fingers about "misinformation", this is the perfect place to start...

Share this post


Link to post

Would like to see if DX12 or Vulkan would make a difference if implemented correctly.

I ran it thru 3D Mark API test with a 9600K/1060 system.

Now if I could get scores like this with DX12 or Vulkan in a future version of P3D

31802103617_76a4b29344_b.jpg

 

 

Edited by TuFun

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, SunDevil56 said:

Don't recall Anyone in this thread saying anything remotely like that, so if were are going to starting pointing fingers about "misinformation", this is the perfect place to start...

Glider1 did more or less as he mentioned FlyInside as "benchmark" für an modern FlightSim with up-to-date multicore usage. FlyInside is in no way a benchmark here, if some would stripdown P3D to to FI's content it would also run as hell.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, 331BK said:

That`s true but P3D is not realy "Gaming"

While that's true from a license agreement perspective and from the way most of us approach P3d, from your computer's perspective, it's a game, which is why if you're getting an off-the-shelf system to run P3d with, you want to find a gaming rig, not a web server.

 

11 hours ago, JoeFackel said:

There will be NEVER Hardware which can run high-sophisticated Flightsims like P3D or XP on full settings with high fps, period.

 

I agree with the sentiment you're expressing throughout the discussion, but disagree with this specific statement. In less than one lifetime we've gone from computers being giant monstrosities that filled entire floors and chugged along at 5,000 instructions per second to carrying around in our pockets computers capable of billions of instructions per second.

If you've ever been in a level-D sim, you know that it's entirely possible to simulate a far richer flight environment than P3d without framerate issues or the other performance annoyances we deal with. Yes, it requires much more powerful hardware than we can get at home, but in 50 years we'll have portable microcomputers that make the level-D computers look like digital morons.

After all, if we'd been having this conversation back in 1984 we'd have been skeptical as to whether we'd ever see a flight simulator with multi-color graphics and weather. 😉

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

What ever V5 is it will not please all the simmers nor will V6 there will always be something a user want`s that's not there.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, JoeFackel said:

Glider1 did more or less as he mentioned FlyInside as "benchmark" für an modern FlightSim with up-to-date multicore usage. FlyInside is in no way a benchmark here, if some would stripdown P3D to to FI's content it would also run as hell.

That's a stretch as far as I'm concerned.

I'll say it again for clarification.. Flyinside or otherwise, I don't see anyone, including glider, suggesting they should get 100 fps on a 5 year old PC with a ton of add on's and all the slider's maxed out... YMMV, and i'll leave it at that..

Edited by SunDevil56

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, eslader said:

If you've ever been in a level-D sim, you know that it's entirely possible to simulate a far richer flight environment than P3d without framerate issues or the other performance annoyances we deal with. Yes, it requires much more powerful hardware than we can get at home, but in 50 years we'll have portable microcomputers that make the level-D computers look like digital morons.

Sure, when you throw tens of thousands EUR into hardware (not to mention the serveral P3D Professional Plus Licences to connect them 😉 ) there is a chance. And of course the hardware will get faster in the next years, but i'm also sure the demands of the new sim versions will rise also ... a race where the hardware never will catch up i'm afraid. At least it was his way the nearly 30 years i'm in Flightsims now 😎

Share this post


Link to post

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