Valeron22

Whats the highest FPS I can get out of the following specs?

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I would like to know whats the maximum FPS achievable on my laptop with following specs and add ons.

My Laptop specs:

Intel i7 4700MQ@2.40Ghz

6GB DDR3 RAM

AMD R7 M265 (2GB VRAM)

Screen resolution is 1366x768 @60Hz

 

Add ons:

Aerosoft London Heathrow.

ORBX Global

PMDG 777

 

As of now I get 18-22 fps if shadows , vegetation, autogen, is of. I have dynamic lighting on and Special effects set to high since PMDG lights don't work if they are even at medium. Volumetric Fog is on. Lens flare off. Detailed precipitation and windshield effects are also off. I tried overclocking GPU it gave a boost of 5 fps however it caused the GPU to crash once and I Don't wanna do it again. I can't afford a better PC so I don't wanna ruin this one. All post processing effects are at its lowest. Is there anyway to get better FPS with these specs?

 

Regards,

Valeron

Share this post


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

35 minutes ago, Valeron22 said:

Hi,

I would like to know whats the maximum FPS achievable on my laptop with following specs and add ons.

My Laptop specs:

Intel i7 4700MQ@2.40Ghz

6GB DDR3 RAM

AMD R7 M265 (2GB VRAM)

Screen resolution is 1366x768 @60Hz

 

Add ons:

Aerosoft London Heathrow.

ORBX Global

PMDG 777

 

As of now I get 18-22 fps if shadows , vegetation, autogen, is of. I have dynamic lighting on and Special effects set to high since PMDG lights don't work if they are even at medium. Volumetric Fog is on. Lens flare off. Detailed precipitation and windshield effects are also off. I tried overclocking GPU it gave a boost of 5 fps however it caused the GPU to crash once and I Don't wanna do it again. I can't afford a better PC so I don't wanna ruin this one. All post processing effects are at its lowest. Is there anyway to get better FPS with these specs?

 

Regards,

Valeron

That question is impossible to answer.  Way to many variables at play.  Lower your settings till you get acceptable frame rates.  Autogen is very hard on FPS.   Push both those sliders all the way left.

Edited by mpw8679

Share this post


Link to post

Your processor has a very slow clock speed and GPU is weak, so they need all the help you can give. Certain options are known to be very performance hungry and should be disabled:

  • FXAA: OFF
  • Dynamic lighting: OFF
  • All AI traffic (that includes car, ships, boats too): LOW or OFF
  • Cloud shadows: OFF
  • Autogen is very heavy on the system, so reducing the draw distance and density has a big impact. I understand you have it fully disabled at the moment though.
  • 3D Autogen vegetation "Speedtrees": OFF
  • Shadow and reflection quality: LOW or OFF

The addons you mentioned are some of the most demanding available! Reducing scenery complexity will help with Aerosoft Heathrow, but consider swapping it for the much lighter UK2000 VFR Airfields. PMDG 777 is another hefty beast, the Majestic Q400 or QualityWings 146 will run much better.

Edited by ckyliu

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

PMDG 777 is another hefty beast, the Majestic Q400 or QualityWings 146 will run much better.

This is a very good point.  The PMDG 777 even on my stout system has a huge impact on performance.  Besides the above mentioned, The Maddog X is another add on to consider.  Good performance yet very complex and detailed.

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

Your processor has a very slow clock speed and GPU is weak, so they need all the help you can give. Certain options are known to be very performance hungry and should be disabled:

  • FXAA: OFF
  • Dynamic lighting: OFF
  • All AI traffic (that includes car, ships, boats too): LOW or OFF
  • Cloud shadows: OFF
  • Autogen is very heavy on the system, so reducing the draw distance and density has a big impact. I understand you have it fully disabled at the moment though.
  • 3D Autogen vegetation "Speedtrees": OFF
  • Shadow and reflection quality: LOW or OFF

The addons you mentioned are some of the most demanding available! Reducing scenery complexity will help with Aerosoft Heathrow, but consider swapping it for the much lighter UK2000 VFR Airfields. PMDG 777 is another hefty beast, the Majestic Q400 or QualityWings 146 will run much better.

I agree with you my CPU struggles. Very rarely it operates at its boost speed of 3.20Ghz. Also Is PMDG 737 lighter on resources or FS Labs A320 (Never used any of them). Will try the Maddog X. Don't know about Quality wings coz I tried their 787 and the FPS drop was unbearable. For me anything above 25fps is Excellent. Thanks for your thoughts and time.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Matt you've just reminded me PMDG usually put options in the FMS to improve performance such as reducing refresh rate of the displays and disabling the first officer's displays. It's not gonna be night and day difference but every little helps.

@Valeron22 The FSL A320 is extremely taxing, if not the most taxing aircraft for P3D and I strongly advise you avoid it. PMDG 737 is only okay, it was considered heavy when it came out but things have moved on since then, it's also expensive and being replaced by the PMDG NG3 line.

The QW 146 is very light because it's an FSX port (and was available on FS9 too) but the systems depth is reasonable and it's cheap to buy. I'm not familiar with the Maddog X's performance but it gets excellent reviews. The Majestic Q400 is probably the king of airliner optimisation, it manages to look good and be very in-depth whilst getting similar framerates to some of the default aircraft!

Edited by ckyliu

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Valeron22 said:

I agree with you my CPU struggles. Very rarely it operates at its boost speed of 3.20Ghz. Also Is PMDG 737 lighter on resources or FS Labs A320 (Never used any of them). Will try the Maddog X. Don't know about Quality wings coz I tried their 787 and the FPS drop was unbearable. For me anything above 25fps is Excellent. Thanks for your thoughts and time.

 

The NGX will perform better then the 777.  The FSlabs A320 is very heavy on frames.  Possibly worse then the 777.  I use the Majestic Q400, Maddog X, and sometimes the TFDI 717 when I know I will be flying in complex areas to help frames.  IMO out of all the complex simulations the Q400 will have the least hit on performance. 

Oops! Looks like ckyliu covered this already. 

Edited by mpw8679

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ckyliu said:

Matt you've just reminded me PMDG usually put options in the FMS to improve performance such as reducing refresh rate of the displays and disabling the first officer's displays. It's not gonna be night and day difference but every little helps.

@Valeron22 The FSL A320 is extremely taxing, if not the most taxing aircraft for P3D and I strongly advise you avoid it. PMDG 737 is only okay, it was considered heavy when it came out but things have moved on since then, it's also expensive and being replaced by the PMDG NG3 line.

The QW 146 is very light because it's an FSX port (and was available on FS9 too) but the systems depth is reasonable and it's cheap to buy. I'm not familiar with the Maddog X's performance but it gets excellent reviews. The Majestic Q400 is probably the king of airliner optimisation, it manages to look good and be very in-depth whilst getting similar framerates to some of the default aircraft!

Agreed. I was saving money to upgrade the ram in this laptop. Now its 6GB, was planning to expand to 16GB which is its max capacity. If I do so I guess I'll be able to accomodate the 777 with medium settings and 30fps. Or is it better to save up for a new pc. Will take me years though....QW146 is USD36 now while 16GB ram costs USD115 or so. In my country (India) taxes are a lot.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't expect a transformational effect from extra RAM, although there will be some improvement. The processor and graphics card are your bottleneck, save for a new machine 

Edited by ckyliu
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have tested and have already reported several times the following:  You install P3DV4.5, start up the sim and leave all of the settings at the default.  P3D has a gadget that determines the best P3D settings for your computer.  It is that easy.  You then run a default flight by maybe placing one of the default aircraft like the F22 and put it at KLAS runway 26R.  Make sure KLAS is the default airport and not the one put out my FS Dreamteam.  No addon airports should even be loaded.  If there are any airports listed in C:\Documents\MyPrepar3DV4 Addons, move the contents to a temporary directory.  This way only the default airports will load.  If you have any addon modules like the Carenado modules, PMDG modules, ActiveSky modules, etc., then you want to disable the dll.xml located in the same folder where P3D is located and the one in the same folder as your scenery.cfg.  You are then pretty much back to the default install.  You then run the fps counter (everyone knows where that is!!) and monitor the FPS while sitting on the runway.  In your case you should be getting over 200 fps.  You can take off and fly around and you will see mostly the same.  Most of it is not going to be pretty with the default settings and most people move their sliders to the max and then blame Lockheed if they crash.  Set up like the above, you can see Lockheed is not a fault here.  Then, you add a scenery addon or aircraft addon and watch the frames crash and burn pretty fast.  Most developers are going for the eye-candy as it sells their products faster but, the more eye-candy the slower your computer will run.  I agree with ckyliu above in regards to the processor and RAM but I do not believe the GPU gives you much of an added benefit other than the rendering might be clearer.  Like FSX, P3D uses the CPU for most of its operations and never calls the GPU to do anything.  The GPU loads graphics just like any other game that uses the CPU for operations.  In FS9 (FS2004) and earlier versions of FS, the GPU provided the most resources for operation of the sim. 

You can go on E-Bay or some discounted computer shops that will sell you a i7 chip like the i7 4770K for less then $700. May people buy new computer systems every year to stay in front of the crowd and then try to sell their "old" systems on E-Bay.  The most expensive components are the CPU and GPU and the latest will cost you about $1500.  A 27" monitor is easy to get for a nice price too.  You don't need the lastest.  You do not need the latest CPU as the "old" i7 2600K has a lot of power and will run P3D, not with max settings, much better than what you are seeing now.   AVSIM occasionally has members selling their systems or monitor for reasonable prices.  If you have a good budget, you can get a very nice system for less than $2400.  Many buy the basics and then later on upgrade system components.  Look in our Hardware section for some advice from the experts who visit there.  Sometimes, if they see a bargain, they'll pass it on to others.

The main problem with a nice system though is that it can become very expensive in other ways.  If it is running P3D with most settings at max, you'll want the eye-candy from the add-on airport and aircraft developers.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Valeron22 said:

All post processing effects are at its lowest. Is there anyway to get better FPS with these specs?

No................

Share this post


Link to post

I'm surprised you get what you get.  My 2500k 4ghz and GTX 980 /16 GB ram only gets 18 in Orbx socal with payware add-ons.

I looked up that AMD video card on your laptop and it's really low end.  I think that's a big problem.  And with a laptop you can't really Change them out

Save for a new system

Share this post


Link to post

 

10 hours ago, Jim Young said:

I have tested and have already reported several times the following:  You install P3DV4.5, start up the sim and leave all of the settings at the default.  P3D has a gadget that determines the best P3D settings for your computer.  It is that easy.  You then run a default flight by maybe placing one of the default aircraft like the F22 and put it at KLAS runway 26R.  Make sure KLAS is the default airport and not the one put out my FS Dreamteam.  No addon airports should even be loaded.  If there are any airports listed in C:\Documents\MyPrepar3DV4 Addons, move the contents to a temporary directory.  This way only the default airports will load.  If you have any addon modules like the Carenado modules, PMDG modules, ActiveSky modules, etc., then you want to disable the dll.xml located in the same folder where P3D is located and the one in the same folder as your scenery.cfg.  You are then pretty much back to the default install.  You then run the fps counter (everyone knows where that is!!) and monitor the FPS while sitting on the runway.  In your case you should be getting over 200 fps.  You can take off and fly around and you will see mostly the same.  Most of it is not going to be pretty with the default settings and most people move their sliders to the max and then blame Lockheed if they crash.  Set up like the above, you can see Lockheed is not a fault here.  Then, you add a scenery addon or aircraft addon and watch the frames crash and burn pretty fast.  Most developers are going for the eye-candy as it sells their products faster but, the more eye-candy the slower your computer will run.  I agree with ckyliu above in regards to the processor and RAM but I do not believe the GPU gives you much of an added benefit other than the rendering might be clearer.  Like FSX, P3D uses the CPU for most of its operations and never calls the GPU to do anything.  The GPU loads graphics just like any other game that uses the CPU for operations.  In FS9 (FS2004) and earlier versions of FS, the GPU provided the most resources for operation of the sim. 

You can go on E-Bay or some discounted computer shops that will sell you a i7 chip like the i7 4770K for less then $700. May people buy new computer systems every year to stay in front of the crowd and then try to sell their "old" systems on E-Bay.  The most expensive components are the CPU and GPU and the latest will cost you about $1500.  A 27" monitor is easy to get for a nice price too.  You don't need the lastest.  You do not need the latest CPU as the "old" i7 2600K has a lot of power and will run P3D, not with max settings, much better than what you are seeing now.   AVSIM occasionally has members selling their systems or monitor for reasonable prices.  If you have a good budget, you can get a very nice system for less than $2400.  Many buy the basics and then later on upgrade system components.  Look in our Hardware section for some advice from the experts who visit there.  Sometimes, if they see a bargain, they'll pass it on to others.

The main problem with a nice system though is that it can become very expensive in other ways.  If it is running P3D with most settings at max, you'll want the eye-candy from the add-on airport and aircraft developers.

Thanks for taking the time to write this. I have decided to save up for a new PC from now...Will check the forums.

 

6 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

I'm surprised you get what you get.  My 2500k 4ghz and GTX 980 /16 GB ram only gets 18 in Orbx socal with payware add-ons.

I looked up that AMD video card on your laptop and it's really low end.  I think that's a big problem.  And with a laptop you can't really Change them out

Save for a new system

As far as I know, maybe your using ORBX Vector. I am using only Global. I heard vector leads to extreme FPS drops

 

Thanks to everyone who replied,

I'll go ahead and close the topic if possible.

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