RTX 2070 results in v4.4

[Deltaair1212 53]

5 hours ago, Rockliffe said:

Exactly. I have to say, I went from a GTX1070 to a 1080ti in P3D and I saw a considerable difference, certainly worth paying the dosh for.

That’s great news! And my whole point of creating this post was to tell the 1080/1080ti users that you aren’t missing much on the 20XX side of things. If you have one of those cards, I say skip this upgrade. Your GPU is plenty fine. But as for my 1060, and 1070/1070ti users, I would consider making the move 😊.

[SunDevil56 183]

23 hours ago, w6kd said:

I often see folks expressing disappointment in a GPU upgrade because it didn't give them the performance boost they expected...and by performance boost, they generally mean an increase in frame rates.

The most important performance gain I see when deploying a high-end graphics subsystem in P3D is the ability to sustain a target frame rate under a wider range of operating conditions, especially those that present heavy GPU loads, where a less powerful graphics subsystem does not.  I can get 30 fps in daytime with clear weather on a 1080p monitor with much less than my current RTX 2080Ti (or the dual 1080Tis in SLI before that), but add a 3820x2160 4K monitor, heavy clouds and rain, night with dynamic lighting, etc and the difference becomes very apparent.

You can certainly manage to a good experience by controlling your operating conditions, but if you want to have the flexibility to operate without being hobbled by those limitations, a high-end GPU will bring it--at a cost, of course.  What I like about P3D compared to previous incarnations of ESP is that it will use what you give it...we struggled for years in FSX where deploying the fastest/bestest hardware often produced no meaningful results at all due to VAS, DX9, and other limitations that rendered (pardon the pun) the better hardware irrelevant in many respects.

Regards

This is certainly what I found to be the case going from a 1080Ti to a 2080Ti on my 9700K system.

Where I haven't found any noticeable increase in raw frame rate performance with the 2080Ti, what I have found is the ability to use things like cloud shadows and dynamic lighting now without it affecting performance like it would have with the 1080Ti at the same locations and conditions. The other thing is I find that GPU utilization is much lower with the 2080Ti for the same settings and conditions, with the 1080Ti there would be times when GPU utilization was pegging 100%, where now it never gets even close to that, which means I have more headroom to experiment with higher settings if I choose to do so.

Yes, it does come at a cost, but I was able to sell my old 1080Ti for a handsome price, which offset the cost of the new 2080Ti considerably, and it was worth it to me for the ability to improve my overall simming experience.

 

[Benjamin J 751]

On 2/15/2019 at 11:31 AM, DylanM said:

If it's clouds that are hammering your performance, then you are likely GPU limited (and a 2070 / 2080 would be a great upgrade). AA processing on cloud layers can contribute to a large proportion of GPU cycles.

Thank you Dylan, I'm glad my gut feelings weren't baseless! I was considering the 2080, just because if I do the upgrade, i'd rather go as far as my budget will allow. Sadly, the 2080ti is just too much of a stretch right now...

 

[Deltaair1212 53]

1 minute ago, Benjamin J said:

Thank you Dylan, I'm glad my gut feelings weren't baseless! I was considering the 2080, just because if I do the upgrade, i'd rather go as far as my budget will allow. Sadly, the 2080ti is just too much of a stretch right now...

 

Look into the 2060. It’s Msrp is under $400 even for third party cards like MSI, and EVGA. It packs a powerful punch for its price. In some benchmarks it surpassed the 1080ti with certain games in 4K...

[Benjamin J 751]

6 hours ago, Deltaair1212 said:

Look into the 2060. It’s Msrp is under $400 even for third party cards like MSI, and EVGA. It packs a powerful punch for its price. In some benchmarks it surpassed the 1080ti with certain games in 4K...

I'll certainly look into it, but are you sure it'd going to be better than the GTX1070? I'm overall very pleased with the card I have, and would be looking to go for something that would be a lot better than what I have now.

[SunDevil56 183]

10 hours ago, Benjamin J said:

I'll certainly look into it, but are you sure it'd going to be better than the GTX1070? I'm overall very pleased with the card I have, and would be looking to go for something that would be a lot better than what I have now.

Here's some benchmarking data for the 2060 -vs- the 2080.

https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-RTX-2080-vs-Nvidia-RTX-2060-6GB/4026vs4034

The raw "user rating" numbers (which are quite subjective btw) are about equal, but in terms of the important hardware capability's like rendering and texture detail etc, the 2080 seems to have the clear edge.

It's worth noting that most of these benchmark numbers are taken from FPS (ie, "first person shooter") games, so it's hard to say how that would play out in a simulation like P3D v4.4, but I suspect the 2080 would probably still be a considerably better performer, perhaps not so much in raw frame rates, but more for the ability to increase settings in the sim that would have otherwise dragged down performance on your old GTX 1070.

If you can afford the 2080, and you seemed inclined to move in that direction, I would go for it, I think it should do very well for you.

 

[Benjamin J 751]

That’s some very interesting information right there, thank you! Definitely seems like I would benefit from an upgrade. I’ll continue looking and see what might be the best option for me. I’m a little nervous about the 2060, mostly because it has less vram, hence I would consider the 2070 or 2080. How might I expect such a card to impact things such as auto gen density? I understand that clouds stand to benefit from it due to the implementation of antialiasing, but will it also help with the rendering of autogen, or is that still very cpu bound? The reason I am is because I was approaching EDDH the other day and found my FPS dwindling from the locked 30 down to about 22 about looking straight at Hamburg. I do have FTX Germany and it wasn’t the nicest weather out there either... Wondering if a better GPU stands to improve that experience?

[pgde 571]

I think it would be useful to know what resolution people are describing above. Thanks!

[Benjamin J 751]

So a deal sprung up on Newegg the other day for an RTX2080. I was tempted to get it as it gave 150$ off, but I decided to do something of a bench mark first. My question to you is, as I describe  what I did and what the numbers were, what would be the bottleneck in the system? My specs are in my signature, and my sliders are on the higher end.

I like to benchmark not with the craziest combination of addons, but rather something realistic that I would actually go and use for real. So I took the Aerosoft A319 at DD's KLGA with their New York City addon in the night at a major thunderstorm. The sim put me on runway 4, so I was mostly looking away from the city, but even so, with FPS locked to 30 I tended to get about 24FPS and not a particularly smooth picture. At this point my CPU is on average working 40-50%, with core 1 at 100% and the other five ranging in between 10-40%. GPU is only at 40% or so, sometimes going up to 50%. Amazingly, panning around and looking square at the city, the GPU utilization doesn't go up very much, and neither does the CPU, it seems, yet the FPS is going down to ~15-18 and the sim is noticeably stuttery, but still usable. Taxiing around KLGA repeats these two conditions are anything in between.

So I decided to take it a step further. I have FT's CYYZ, and was astonished at how hard it hits my computer, so I decided to take this same scenerio but put it at CYYZ. This airport has a ton of dynamic lights and is overall a much mroe details airport environment, even though I did turn off the interior and various other tidbits. Starting on runway 5, i was immediately obvious that if I don't look at the normal, the FPS is at 30 and the sim runs smoothly. Looking at the cargo aprons, with all the dynamic lights, is when the GPU utilization goes up to 70%, but even that was fairly rare. Usually it was in the range of 45-65%. Looking at the terminal building is when FPS plummets. That said, moving closer to the terminal, the FPS gets better and the sim becomes much smoother, despite the fact that the FPS would not suggest a smooth experience.

All in all, my feeling is that the CPU is the biggest bottle neck, and while it seems that a better video card can probably help out in rare situations where there are many layers of overcast clouds, I'm not entirely sure it's an investment that makes total sense. Hence I didn't buy the RTX2080. It seems to me that at most a RTX2070 would probably the best bang for buck for me, but that the first upgrade to look at would be a different CPU. How does that assessment sound? Is that somewhat reasonable?

[pgde 571]

Delete, dup post....

Edited February 21, 2019 by pgde

[mpw8679 428]

1 hour ago, Benjamin J said:

So a deal sprung up on Newegg the other day for an RTX2080. I was tempted to get it as it gave 150$ off, but I decided to do something of a bench mark first. My question to you is, as I describe  what I did and what the numbers were, what would be the bottleneck in the system? My specs are in my signature, and my sliders are on the higher end.

I like to benchmark not with the craziest combination of addons, but rather something realistic that I would actually go and use for real. So I took the Aerosoft A319 at DD's KLGA with their New York City addon in the night at a major thunderstorm. The sim put me on runway 4, so I was mostly looking away from the city, but even so, with FPS locked to 30 I tended to get about 24FPS and not a particularly smooth picture. At this point my CPU is on average working 40-50%, with core 1 at 100% and the other five ranging in between 10-40%. GPU is only at 40% or so, sometimes going up to 50%. Amazingly, panning around and looking square at the city, the GPU utilization doesn't go up very much, and neither does the CPU, it seems, yet the FPS is going down to ~15-18 and the sim is noticeably stuttery, but still usable. Taxiing around KLGA repeats these two conditions are anything in between.

So I decided to take it a step further. I have FT's CYYZ, and was astonished at how hard it hits my computer, so I decided to take this same scenerio but put it at CYYZ. This airport has a ton of dynamic lights and is overall a much mroe details airport environment, even though I did turn off the interior and various other tidbits. Starting on runway 5, i was immediately obvious that if I don't look at the normal, the FPS is at 30 and the sim runs smoothly. Looking at the cargo aprons, with all the dynamic lights, is when the GPU utilization goes up to 70%, but even that was fairly rare. Usually it was in the range of 45-65%. Looking at the terminal building is when FPS plummets. That said, moving closer to the terminal, the FPS gets better and the sim becomes much smoother, despite the fact that the FPS would not suggest a smooth experience.

All in all, my feeling is that the CPU is the biggest bottle neck, and while it seems that a better video card can probably help out in rare situations where there are many layers of overcast clouds, I'm not entirely sure it's an investment that makes total sense. Hence I didn't buy the RTX2080. It seems to me that at most a RTX2070 would probably the best bang for buck for me, but that the first upgrade to look at would be a different CPU. How does that assessment sound? Is that somewhat reasonable?

It’s pretty simple really.  Get a card with at least 8gb vram.  The rest just depends on how u want the sim to look.  If u like high levels of AA, dynamic lighting, lots of shadows, and lots of HD clouds u are going to need a 1080ti, 2080, or 2080ti.  People put way to much emphasis on trying to balance there system.  It all depends what is important to u in the sim and your slider settings.  

[SunDevil56 183]

22 hours ago, Benjamin J said:

All in all, my feeling is that the CPU is the biggest bottle neck, and while it seems that a better video card can probably help out in rare situations where there are many layers of overcast clouds, I'm not entirely sure it's an investment that makes total sense. Hence I didn't buy the RTX2080. It seems to me that at most a RTX2070 would probably the best bang for buck for me, but that the first upgrade to look at would be a different CPU. How does that assessment sound? Is that somewhat reasonable?

Yes, it sounds reasonable based on your testing that your CPU might be the biggest bottleneck.

What kind of CPU are thinking of going to Ben..?? I'm guessing maybe an i7 8700K or..??

I see the 8700K for $359 @ Amazon, and the 9700K would run just a hair over $400.

I've heard it said that the 8700K is well suited to overclocking, though I never did it with mine. I'm currently running a 9700K and like it a lot.

If you can catch an 8700K and an RTX2070 on sale, you might be able to upgrade to both and still stay reasonably close to your projected budget for an RTX2080 alone. EVGA sells their dual fan version of the 2070 factory direct for $529, which seems like a pretty good deal

Alternatively, nice used GTX 1080Ti's can be found on ebay for sub $600 if you wanted to consider going that route, and the 1080Ti is a great card, I used one for a year and a half before getting my 2080Ti.

[RudiJG1 172]

I'm very pleased with my i7-8700K/RTX2070 combo in P3D v4.4. I've included 16Gb of fast RAM (GSkill RipJaws V3200) with an MSI Z370 Carbon Gaming Pro MB, and this system runs the sim very well.

Edited February 22, 2019 by RudiJG1

[Benjamin J 751]

1 hour ago, SunDevil56 said:

Yes, it sounds reasonable based on your testing that your CPU might be the biggest bottleneck.

What kind of CPU are thinking of going to Ben..?? I'm guessing maybe an i7 8700K or..??

I see the 8700K for $359 @ Amazon, and the 9700K would run just a hair over $400.

I've heard it said that the 8700K is well suited to overclocking, though I never did it with mine. I'm currently running a 9700K and like it a lot.

If you can catch an 8700K and an RTX2070 on sale, you might be able to upgrade to both and still stay reasonably close to your projected budget for an RTX2080 alone. EVGA sells their dual fan version of the 2070 factory direct for $529, which seems like a pretty good deal

Alternatively, nice used GTX 1080Ti's can be found on ebay for sub $600 if you wanted to consider going that route, and the 1080Ti is a great card, I used one for a year and a half before getting my 2080Ti.

Heh, well I actually prefer not to upgrade the CPU at this point! Given that we have no idea what's in store with P3Dv5, I was thinking it might be prudent to sit it out and wait. My current build is only some 10 months old. And not to forget all the anxiety I went through when installing my current CPU :P

What's comforting is that at least upgrading the CPU is not associated with the same sort of cost that a graphics card is associated with, and it seems like the most cost-effective way of boosting P3D performance. I'll keep in mind the 8700k (thanks for your input, Wayne!), though it seems the 9700k will be the way of the future. So when I do upgrade, I'll likely go with the newest that my current MOBO can support. It's a Z370, so it should be good to go for a while longer I presume. You say that you run your 9700k on its stock clock?

Also... what exactly is it about the i7 that makes it better for P3D than an i5? If you cna OC your i7 to 4.5GHz, why is it that it's expected to perform better than my current i5 OC'ed to its current 4.8GHz?

I will add that I've generally been very pleased with my computer, despite some performance issues in crowded and performance intensive areas. So far it's proven a speedy and reliable build.

[SunDevil56 183]

2 minutes ago, Benjamin J said:

You say that you run your 9700k on its stock clock?

Also... what exactly is it about the i7 that makes it better for P3D than an i5? If you cna OC your i7 to 4.5GHz, why is it that it's expected to perform better than my current i5 OC'ed to its current 4.8GHz?

I will add that I've generally been very pleased with my computer, despite some performance issues in crowded and performance intensive areas. So far it's proven a speedy and reliable build.

Yes, I run stock clock on my 9700K, Aida64 reports that it averages between 4.8 and 4.9 ghz when i'm running P3D, and that's across all 8 cores. The 9700K does not employ hyperthreading and it runs cool as can be with my Noctua NH D-15 air cooler.

Erm... I'm not sure what makes an 8700K way better than what you've currently got at 4.8 ghz. except that i've heard reports that people have gotten 5 and even 5.1 ghz stable overclocks with it (see Tom's hardware forums for more info on that)....

Me, i'm always upgrading, money is not a concern, and I want the best possible performance I can get in P3D. Upgrading recently to a 9700K and a 2080Ti did make a noticeable improvement for my setup, not so much in raw frames per second, but in the ability to increase settings without suffering any degradation in performance, that's all I can tell you..... (I went from a stock 8700K and 1080Ti)

If you're happy with what you've got, then that's great, and no need to change. The 10 nm chips will be out sometime this year I believe, but i'm not sure what the consensus is on those versus the current stable of Intel processors. One thing is almost certain, the LGA 1151 300 series boards won't support it.