FPS Expectations on i9-9900K and RTX 2080

[AnkH 2,266]

Well, I disagree. When you do your overclocking properly, it should not matter if HT is on or not. IF you can reach a certain overclock only with HT off, you might reconsider your cooling solution or your OC anyway. Then, if you reach 5.0GHz with HT off on all cores but only 4.8GHz with HT on, do you really think that those lousy 200MHz make any difference? It does not, as it is just 4%. Nobody will ever realize if the sim runs with 21 instead of 20FPS, assuming that 100% of the clock rate increase is transformed into FPS, which is not even the case (so you will rather get only 20.5FPS instead of 21...).

The cache is the only really relevant thing that differs a i9 from a i7 with HT off. Other than that, buying a i9 and turning off HT is simply a waste of money...

[Ricardo41 5,949]

14 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

These 3 will be hardest hitting on the FPS front.

Cheers, Rob.

I bought all of the three "basic" Orbx products and have them all installed. Plus trees and buildings hd.Frame rates are limited to 25, and I get about 20-25. Perfectly flyable.

My rig is 4 years old, and I have 8 gigs of Ram - that's system ram not graphics card ram.

Please stop with all these pointless "optimizations" and "configurations". These are mostly voodoo and placebo fixes.

There is only one fix that will significantly improve performance.....wait for it.......sliders left.

Turn down your settings up to the point where the visual quality is still acceptable to you.

Problem solved.

[Nyxx 6,993]

2 hours ago, AnkH said:

Well, I disagree. When you do your overclocking properly, it should not matter if HT is on or not. IF you can reach a certain overclock only with HT off, you might reconsider your cooling solution or your OC anyway. Then, if you reach 5.0GHz with HT off on all cores but only 4.8GHz with HT on, do you really think that those lousy 200MHz make any difference? It does not, as it is just 4%. Nobody will ever realize if the sim runs with 21 instead of 20FPS, assuming that 100% of the clock rate increase is transformed into FPS, which is not even the case (so you will rather get only 20.5FPS instead of 21...).

The cache is the only really relevant thing that differs a i9 from a i7 with HT off. Other than that, buying a i9 and turning off HT is simply a waste of money...

Totally agree, I did a lot of research and still not bought a new PC, but from everything I watched and learned for P3D a 9700k is the best bang for bucks. Here in the UK a pre-binned 9700k@5.1 is £520 a pre-binned 9900k @5.1 is £900 and people turn off the HT? that's a lot of money to justify 4MB cache. Plus a 9700k with no HT is a lot easier to keep cool than a 9900k. The only  thing I learned was a 9900k@ 5 is the same as a 9700k@ 5.1 speed wise.So knock yourself out for 100Hz gain.

[Nyxx 6,993]

16 hours ago, Chapstick said:

I would honestly uninstall Vector completely. 

The only thing thats its good for is Beaches and golf courses, joking aside I have everything turned off apart from the top two classes of roads and railroads but only the very basic options on them.

The only thing I like it for is airport evervation problems.

[omarsmak30 4,068]

16 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Totally agree, I did a lot of research and still not bought a new PC, but from everything I watched and learned for P3D a 9700k is the best bang for bucks. Here in the UK a pre-binned 9700k@5.1 is £520 a pre-binned 9900k @5.1 is £900 and people turn off the HT? that's a lot of money to justify 4MB cache. Plus a 9700k with no HT is a lot easier to keep cool than a 9900k. The only  thing I learned was a 9900k@ 5 is the same as a 9700k@ 5.1 speed wise.So knock yourself out for 100Hz gain.

Well here in Germany the price difference was 100 euros, so I thought I will go with i9. However, anyways sooner or later, I will need to enable the HT as I need it for other applications. I wouldn't give it up only for P3D while I need it for other applications

[Pete Dowson 558]

2 hours ago, AnkH said:

if you reach 5.0GHz with HT off on all cores but only 4.8GHz with HT on, do you really think that those lousy 200MHz make any difference?

Actually, with good cooling, we had it running at 5.5GHz with the cache at 5.0HGz. But to do that we had to turn down the main memory speed to 3.6GHz. The optimisation in the end worked out at 5.3GHz CPU, 5.0 cache with 4.0 main memory.

With 8 real cores I see no need for HT. What are you trying to do with 16 "cores"?

From what I read, if you really want many cores rather than concentrate on what P3D really needs you should probably consider Ryzen CPUs these days.

With my 210 degree FOV screen and three projectors needing 3 scenery windows, every extra 100 MHz I can squeeze out of the processor etc helps. Multiple windows reduces FPS considerably -- 50% reduction with three!

Pete

 

[David Roch 1,982]

Hello Omar,
Not sure your "problem" is linked to ORBX or to a specific addon.
I have more or less the same rig as yours and also get 20 fps at EDDF's gates, in the 3D cockpit.
Problem comes from the addition of addons, the ultra-high settings and the high demanding scenery and aircraft.
So for me you don't have a problem with your system. You are just asking lot of resources a less powerful CPU would never provide.
20 fps is OK for bringing the A320 to the runway's threshold. As soon as you will be airborne your fps will also climb and then, you'll appreciate your i9. 🙂

And I 100% agree with Pete, you really don't need more than 8 cores for P3D.
HT will just raise your temps and provoke additional stutters.

[B777ER 2,486]

4 hours ago, Pete Dowson said:

BTW, with RTSS limiting the frame rate I've always found that core 0 (or the first core used by P3D) does tend to lock at 100% usage even when it isn't doing a lot.

Pete

 

 

Workaround for this core 0 100% useage is once P3D is running, go into task manager, right click in the p3d process under the details tab, select "set affinity" and simply hit the okay button. No need to uncheck/check any cores. After doing this go to the performance tab, click on "open resource monitor" and you will see core 0 is now in line with the other seven cores. And it will stay that way until you restart P3D again and you have to repeat the process.

[Pete Dowson 558]

1 hour ago, B777ER said:

Workaround for this core 0 100% useage is once P3D is running, go into task manager, right click in the p3d process under the details tab, select "set affinity" and simply hit the okay button. No need to uncheck/check any cores. After doing this go to the performance tab, click on "open resource monitor" and you will see core 0 is now in line with the other seven cores. And it will stay that way until you restart P3D again and you have to repeat the process.

Thanks. I think I tried that. I concluded that it might "fix" what is reported with RTSS operating the limit, but I haven't found it actually changes performance one bit. I think what must be happening is that RTSS is "soaking up" spare cycles. There's no appearent difference in performance with or without RTSS running. Its only purpose here is to help smooth out P3D, same as using VSync assuming I had my projectors running at 30 fps.

Pete

 

[threexgreen 3,139]

@omarsmak30 See if you can use any input from this thread.

 

[omarsmak30 4,068]

1 hour ago, David Roch said:

Hello Omar,
Not sure your "problem" is linked to ORBX or to a specific addon.
I have more or less the same rig as yours and also get 20 fps at EDDF's gates, in the 3D cockpit.
Problem comes from the addition of addons, the ultra-high settings and the high demanding scenery and aircraft.
So for me you don't have a problem with your system. You are just asking lot of resources a less powerful CPU would never provide.
20 fps is OK for bringing the A320 to the runway's threshold. As soon as you will be airborne your fps will also climb and then, you'll appreciate your i9. 🙂

And I 100% agree with Pete, you really don't need more than 8 cores for P3D.
HT will just raise your temps and provoke additional stutters.

Thanks a lot David! Actually I have no issues. Just wanted to know other simmers have similar performance with similar specs in order for me not to freak out if my rig has some problems 😅.

 

By the way guys, an update, somehow I did something that actually has improved my performance with the settings that I kept. I reduced the UTL traffic to 30% and disabled the GA traffic. Also I reduced the road traffic to 5%. Most importantly as some guys suggested here, I only kept orbx vectors enabled for highways and disabled the other options. Now at AS EDDF, I get between 25-30 fps which makes happy to get the best out of both 😄

[David Roch 1,982]

My pleasure Omar.
Glad you just reduced the sliders a bit to be happy with the result.
You have a fantastic machine, the 9900K and the RTX2080 are very good friends together, enjoy! 🙂
👍

[Nyxx 6,993]

You could also now you have done your Orbx Vector tweaks, try even more adjusting you UTL, set the traffic so it has a limit of 15 miles on the ground so any close by airports will not be adding aircraft you have no need for. Also try setting max AI to 25 aircraft max. Last thing is set traffic to spawn in on the ground when your below 10,000ft. I only need UI to make me feel my airports are alive and even with only 25 max aircraft I still have to hold sort and wait for traffic and even big airport were you get all 25 look ok to me and that way you FPS is minimal.

I have Road traffic set to zero around cities even 5 is a FPS hit, but I Have to be more careful on my old PC. 

[AnkH 2,266]

2 hours ago, Pete Dowson said:

With my 210 degree FOV screen and three projectors needing 3 scenery windows, every extra 100 MHz I can squeeze out of the processor etc helps. Multiple windows reduces FPS considerably -- 50% reduction with three!

Sorry, but no. 100MHz is 2% performance difference around 5GHz and as I said, even if those 2% are translated 100% into FPS (which is never the case), it is simply not worth the hassle.

Besides that: if you insist that much on the fact that 8 cores are way sufficient for P3D, then I even wonder more why you get an i9 over an i7... this 4MB cache can not be the whole story, no?

Anyway, offtopic...

[Pete Dowson 558]

1 minute ago, AnkH said:

Sorry, but no. 100MHz is 2% performance difference around 5GHz and as I said, even if those 2% are translated 100% into FPS (which is never the case), it is simply not worth the hassle.

Please yourself. whatever suits you. I know i get smoother results with the hight CPU clock rates. This is because i am pushing at the limits in order to overcome the performance costs P3D imposes when you have multiple scenery windows. If you are not, then I agree.

3 minutes ago, AnkH said:

I even wonder more why you get an i9 over an i7... this 4MB cache can not be the whole story,

It is not. The 9900 is way more overclockable.

Pete