Regular GTX 1080 enough to play in 4k?

[devgrp 1,233]

1 minute ago, joec63 said:

What's the specs on your new system -  Did you go with AMD CPU  ?   That's what I need to figure out for my next system build this winter.  Intel or AMD

I7 10700k @ 5ghz, 32gb ram, 2x 1tb nvme, msi 2080 super 

[devgrp 1,233]

42 minutes ago, micstatic said:

even with a 2080ti I'm seeing people struggle with 4k.  My personal opinion is no 4k for now.  Then we can re-evaluate when the newest graphic cards come out later this year.  Then again I've seen videos where people seem personally content with frames dancing around in the teens.  But I think 4k is not a good option unless we can maintain 30 everywhere. 

4k @ 30 fps can be maintained everywhere with a 2080 ti, with my 2080 super, I get 30-35 fps in the big jets @nyc and lax on high settings. 50 - 60 everywhere else, especially in the smaller planes 

[micstatic 4,300]

1 minute ago, devgrp said:

4k @ 30 fps can be maintained everywhere with a 2080 ti, with my 2080 super, I get 30-35 fps in the big jets @nyc and lax on high settings. 50 - 60 everywhere else, especially in the smaller planes 

you must have some really low settings then?  Here is an example supporting why I believe 4k is not practical in MSFS with current gen tech

 

[AllRed 53]

Is there a side by side comparison of 2K v 4K video anywhere? As personally I struggle to notice the difference myself.

[devgrp 1,233]

1 minute ago, micstatic said:

you must have some really low settings then?  Here is an example supporting why I believe 4k is not practical in MSFS with current gen tech

 

I just said Im running high settings lol. I flew last night @ 4k and everywhere I went my frames were 50-60 with GA planes. 

Only thing I changed was set trees to med and lens flare off. I'm expecting perf to be better since we are running beta that will be optimized for the final release 

[micstatic 4,300]

sorry missed that about your settings.  Could just be because you are only running GA planes.  take care. 

[Nedo68 533]

4k simply looks best, and with the right hardware it can run buttersmooth.

[Turpentine 375]

47 minutes ago, joec63 said:

What's the specs on your new system -  Did you go with AMD CPU  ?   That's what I need to figure out for my next system build this winter.  Intel or AMD

It's not scientific in any way, but reading through various forums, my impression is that the sim is currently not as well optimized for AMD vs Intel. 

[javelina 56]

1 hour ago, joec63 said:

NO 4K -  i7- 9700K, GTX1080, 32GB RAM - I can run it 3440x 1440 with High settings  , If I drop to 1080P I can run at Ultra . My goal is smooth so your mileage may vary.

thanks for that data point, my specs are similar (except I have 64GB RAM).

[David Mills 4,722]

I have a 1070 running on a five-year-old i7. I have no problem running the sim at 4K and getting good performance. What's usually overlooked -- or unknown -- to many who comment here is that 30FPS on the new sim looks and feels like 50-60FPS on P3D or X-Plane. The new sim works in a very different way. So you can't really compare FPS alone and come up with a meaningful assessment. Also, as others have mentioned, merely setting the Render Scaling from 100 to 80 makes a huge difference in frame rates without affecting visual quality in any perceptible way. A lot of the videos I've seen over the past few weeks were hastily posted (to beat other YouTubers to the punch) without adequately exploring the graphics settings. The 747 landing at JFK, for example, obviously had the Road Traffic set to 100. I've never seen so many cars in my life! As in the past, this maxed-out road traffic is a frame killer. My point is this: Once you explore and learn how the graphics options interact with your own hardware, you'll have no problem running a 1080 or a 1070 at 4K. I personally use the High settings, which is one notch below Ultra, but again there is almost no appreciable difference between High and Ultra -- and I use a 75" 4K TV and sit very close to it. Even if you run MSFS2020 at only 1920x1080 and use the Low settings as well, the sim still looks about a billion times better than P3D or X-Plane.

[Michael Moe 493]

36 minutes ago, David Mills said:

I have a 1070 running on a five-year-old i7. I have no problem running the sim at 4K and getting good performance. What's usually overlooked -- or unknown -- to many who comment here is that 30FPS on the new sim looks and feels like 50-60FPS on P3D or X-Plane. The new sim works in a very different way. So you can't really compare FPS alone and come up with a meaningful assessment. Also, as others have mentioned, merely setting the Render Scaling from 100 to 80 makes a huge difference in frame rates without affecting visual quality in any perceptible way. A lot of the videos I've seen over the past few weeks were hastily posted (to beat other YouTubers to the punch) without adequately exploring the graphics settings. The 747 landing at JFK, for example, obviously had the Road Traffic set to 100. I've never seen so many cars in my life! As in the past, this maxed-out road traffic is a frame killer. My point is this: Once you explore and learn how the graphics options interact with your own hardware, you'll have no problem running a 1080 or a 1070 at 4K. I personally use the High settings, which is one notch below Ultra, but again there is almost no appreciable difference between High and Ultra -- and I use a 75" 4K TV and sit very close to it. Even if you run MSFS2020 at only 1920x1080 and use the Low settings as well, the sim still looks about a billion times better than P3D or X-Plane.

Thanks for the tips. I have a 49" ish 4k tv for flightsim so this scaling thing might be my solution on my I7-4770K@4,6 1080TI FTW3 32GB.

Michael Moe

[devgrp 1,233]

47 minutes ago, David Mills said:

I have a 1070 running on a five-year-old i7. I have no problem running the sim at 4K and getting good performance. What's usually overlooked -- or unknown -- to many who comment here is that 30FPS on the new sim looks and feels like 50-60FPS on P3D or X-Plane. The new sim works in a very different way. So you can't really compare FPS alone and come up with a meaningful assessment. Also, as others have mentioned, merely setting the Render Scaling from 100 to 80 makes a huge difference in frame rates without affecting visual quality in any perceptible way. A lot of the videos I've seen over the past few weeks were hastily posted (to beat other YouTubers to the punch) without adequately exploring the graphics settings. The 747 landing at JFK, for example, obviously had the Road Traffic set to 100. I've never seen so many cars in my life! As in the past, this maxed-out road traffic is a frame killer. My point is this: Once you explore and learn how the graphics options interact with your own hardware, you'll have no problem running a 1080 or a 1070 at 4K. I personally use the High settings, which is one notch below Ultra, but again there is almost no appreciable difference between High and Ultra -- and I use a 75" 4K TV and sit very close to it. Even if you run MSFS2020 at only 1920x1080 and use the Low settings as well, the sim still looks about a billion times better than P3D or X-Plane.

This and they are cranking up the render scaling to 200 which makes it way too sharp imo

[hanhamreds 592]

1 hour ago, David Mills said:

I have a 1070 running on a five-year-old i7. I have no problem running the sim at 4K and getting good performance. What's usually overlooked -- or unknown -- to many who comment here is that 30FPS on the new sim looks and feels like 50-60FPS on P3D or X-Plane. The new sim works in a very different way. So you can't really compare FPS alone and come up with a meaningful assessment. Also, as others have mentioned, merely setting the Render Scaling from 100 to 80 makes a huge difference in frame rates without affecting visual quality in any perceptible way. A lot of the videos I've seen over the past few weeks were hastily posted (to beat other YouTubers to the punch) without adequately exploring the graphics settings. The 747 landing at JFK, for example, obviously had the Road Traffic set to 100. I've never seen so many cars in my life! As in the past, this maxed-out road traffic is a frame killer. My point is this: Once you explore and learn how the graphics options interact with your own hardware, you'll have no problem running a 1080 or a 1070 at 4K. I personally use the High settings, which is one notch below Ultra, but again there is almost no appreciable difference between High and Ultra -- and I use a 75" 4K TV and sit very close to it. Even if you run MSFS2020 at only 1920x1080 and use the Low settings as well, the sim still looks about a billion times better than P3D or X-Plane.

Thanks for this, you are sooooo right about the YouTubers as well.

Hopefully a channel like digital Foundry will re-visit and do a more in-depth technical video - the likes of Froogle and squirrel really have no clue when it comes to this 

[EmaRacing 302]

1 hour ago, hanhamreds said:

Thanks for this, you are sooooo right about the YouTubers as well.

Hopefully a channel like digital Foundry will re-visit and do a more in-depth technical video - the likes of Froogle and squirrel really have no clue when it comes to this 

I learned to hate every gaming youtuber even more after having to rely on them for MFS

[Oldschool61 38]

8 hours ago, captain420 said:

Would a regular GTX 1080 8GB video card be sufficient to run this sim at 4K with decent performance?

Don't be obsessed with 4K.  Its over rated.  1440P with higher fps is way to go.  Unless your 15 inches from screen your not going to see much difference except for the fps hit.