Hi,

I'm hoping some more tech minded people can help me get my new GPU working properly in P3D.

I have unlimited frames selected in both P3D and Nvidea control panel. I have high performance selected in both Windows and Nvidea control panel.

Basically I have pretty much all my sliders maxed out, but only a small % of the GPU memory is being used, with a relatively low frame rate around 30. 

I would have expected the PC to use maybe 12 GB or more out of 24GB by increasing the frame rate from such a modest level when the GPU usage is so low. 

You can see from the attached image that the CPU does not seem to be causing a bottleneck, but it's like something is restricting the GPU's usage.

To try and sort it I have done the following :-

-Uninstall my GPU and deleted the driver, then reinstall and download the latest Nvidea driver from GE Force Experience.

-Uninstalled P3D v5.2 client, and deleted shaders and the cfg. Then reinstalled a fresh download of the client.

Hopefully I am missing something that can get my GPU usage, and frame rate increased.

Thanks

Edit - I just tried to do an actual flight and the frames dropped to about 15 rolling along the runway. It's almost like my PC still thinks the old 6GB card is inside, although it's the new one that's showing up as installed.

Thanks

Edited July 16, 20214 yr by WestEnd

Keep in mind that the task manager (as you posted) shows the average CPU load across all cores. If you stand on ground in P3D, the first core/thread usually has a high load, while the other cores run almost idle, which makes the average value meaningless. It is during a flight that the other cores run at higher loads. Therefore, I recommend that you change the CPU graph to logical processors by right-clicking on the CPU load graph to see the load for each core. That's one way to find out if you are CPU (core 0) limited or not. (I guess that you are because if you move all sliders to the right, you activate a lot of CPU-intensive FPS eaters, such as traffic or autogen radius - and that is especially true if you use complex airplanes). 

As far as VRAM usage, most people have complained in the past that P3D v5 uses too much of it, so LM has reduced the consumption with the latest update. What is there to complain about?  24 GB is an overkill for P3D in my opinion, but since your GPU has so much, you can be almost certain to never run out of VRAM.

31 minutes ago, WestEnd said:

You can see from the attached image that the CPU does not seem to be causing a bottleneck

You need to look at each CPU core individually... the overall CPU usage does not tell you anything in that regard. As stated above, right click on the CPU graph and select Logical Processors.

Edited July 16, 20214 yr by Bert Pieke

It's very frustrating having spent quite a chunk of money on a 24GB GPU that P3D can only use about 3GB of it. 

Perhaps I need to decide whether to accept I'm only going to get a modest performance increase for my money, or I need to get a new CPU as well. 

What level of CPU would I need to get as much out the new GPU as I can get from P3D? I don't want to just buy one without really knowing, and finding I've wasted yet more money.

You can see the specs of my existing processor in the image in the OP.

Thanks for any help.

Edit- would this allow as much as P3D can get out my GPU without causing a bottleneck?

Intel Core i9 10980XE Extreme, S 2066, Cascade Lake-X, 18 Cores, 36 Threads, 3.0GHz, 4.6GHz Turbo, 24.75MB, 165W, Retail

 

 

Edited July 17, 20214 yr by WestEnd

If you want to use more vram, increase your resolution (4k or nvsurround over 3 screens), increase your AA setting, set the texture exp in p3d cfg to 10. 

 

12 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

You need to look at each CPU core individually... the overall CPU usage does not tell you anything in that regard. As stated above, right click on the CPU graph and select Logical Processors.

This is a photo of the CPU during a flight.

I am tempted to buy the processor I posted above, but having had only a small benefit from the new GPU,  I am concerned there would be a similarly small benefit from the new CPU. I suppose all I could is buy it and try but I already feel quite sickened that the new GPU is not giving the expected rewards. The processor above seems to be about the best Intel CPU I can see without getting into crazy money.

There seems to be a lot of debate as to whether P3Dv5.2 benefits from more cores or not, but there doesn't seem to be any CPUs I can see on the market with the same number of cores as mine, but significantly faster speed.

The image here suggests P3D are using all the cores, albeit the usage is spiking up and down.

 

Before you spend a lot of money on a new CPU, I highly recommend that you experiment with your graphics sliders. If you only have around 32 FPS, as from the image above, there is some setting that severely eats up CPU power, and buying a new CPU would only marginally improve the frame rate, since P3D is still very much dependent on the core0 speed. What is the location and what airplane are you using?  A good start would be to post your settings. 

A lot of people expect that buying a new expensive video card will vastly improve the frame rate in all situations. What these people don't understand is that whether the CPU or the GPU is the bottleneck is very situation dependent. If you sit in the cockpit of a very complex airplane at a complex airport with tons of AI- and car traffic being active (and having autogen sliders all the way to the right), these elements eat heavily on your CPU, while the GPU does not have much work to do (you can check the GPU load in that situation). Buying a faster GPU will only reduce the GPU load in that situation, but most people expect the FPS to increase.

A scenario that is heavy on the GPU would be running the sim at 4K with AA settings maxed out under heavy clouds with dynamic lights being active at the airport. If your previous GPU couldn't cope with this situation (the GPU load was at 100%), the new GPU will improve your performance in this specific situation. But there will be situations during your flight when your GPU will not have to do a lot of work (being bottlenecked by the CPU), which is not the fault of the GPU.

5 hours ago, WestEnd said:

It's very frustrating having spent quite a chunk of money on a 24GB GPU that P3D can only use about 3GB of it. 

Perhaps I need to decide whether to accept I'm only going to get a modest performance increase for my money, or I need to get a new CPU as well. 

What level of CPU would I need to get as much out the new GPU as I can get from P3D? I don't want to just buy one without really knowing, and finding I've wasted yet more money.

You can see the specs of my existing processor in the image in the OP.

Thanks for any help.

Edit- would this allow as much as P3D can get out my GPU without causing a bottleneck?

Intel Core i9 10980XE Extreme, S 2066, Cascade Lake-X, 18 Cores, 36 Threads, 3.0GHz, 4.6GHz Turbo, 24.75MB, 165W, Retail

 

 

There are some specific entries in the prepared.cfg that you can edit to get the best from your available VRAM, if you're happy to do that?

My 3090 is paired with an i9 10850K running at 5.2Ghz, and it permits a high degree of flexibility as to whether I set it for max number of Shadows, varying degrees of shadow draw distance and fidelity, balanced with differing AA levels.

Too many people I think have one set of settings and dont alter them, but different scenarios benefit from different settings.  I can still get the 3090 to its knees easily enough if I try, but there's really no need to.

 

I’m running a 5950x and an RTX 3900 and I set frame rate in the nvidia control panel to 40 FPS and high performance. I getting pretty consistent frame rates of 35-40 FPS. That’s at 3840x1600 on one monitor. I don’t have every slider maxed out since some stuff is unnecessary imho at max levels, like boats. I use the high resolution textures. So there is more performance available, but I would tinker more before buying a CPU. 

Edited July 17, 20214 yr by Iadbound

@WestEnd, you haven’t mentioned what resolution you’re running. With a 3090 anything less than UHD - 3840*2160 is a waste of such a card.

That resolution has four times the number of pixels of 1920*1080 and would work your GPU harder but as already mentioned it’s overkill for P3D for a single monitor setup.

First, VRAM usage and frame rate aren't really correlated.  If you were expecting better frame rates due to more VRAM your expectations weren't realistic to begin with.

VRAM usage is driven by video resolution, high-definition graphics, high LOD settings and post-processing like SSAA/SGSS.  Try LatinVFR's KMIA in a high-end acft add-on with 100% AIG traffic, 4096 textures, shadows, 5 layers of clouds, and rain, and you'll see VRAM usage that a lesser card wouldn't handle.  But yes, 24GB is overkill.  I wanted more than 11 but don't need 24...but 24 was the next step up, so 24 it is.

If you're seeing 15 fps with a 9900K (even though not overclocked) and a 3090, something else is amiss in your setup.  I get much better than that on my portable PC with a 9900K (at 5.0 GHz) and a 1080Ti driving a 2560x1440 G-Sync monitor.  You should find and fix that first before buying a new CPU/mobo--you may well not need it.  And if you do get a new CPU, the 10980XE would not be my choice (the XE stands for Xtremely Expensive)--either a 10-core i9-10900K/10850K or an 8-core i9-11900K would be far more cost effective.  And consider at least a moderate overclock on either your current or any future system to 5.0GHz or better--all of those CPUs will do that easily with a decent aftermarket CPU cooler.

3 hours ago, kevinfirth said:

There are some specific entries in the prepared.cfg that you can edit to get the best from your available VRAM, if you're happy to do that?

My 3090 is paired with an i9 10850K running at 5.2Ghz, and it permits a high degree of flexibility as to whether I set it for max number of Shadows, varying degrees of shadow draw distance and fidelity, balanced with differing AA levels.

Too many people I think have one set of settings and dont alter them, but different scenarios benefit from different settings.  I can still get the 3090 to its knees easily enough if I try, but there's really no need to.

 

I don't mind editing the cfg as I've deleted it and allowed P3D to generate a new one plenty of times anyway, so it's no biggie if I mess up and have to start again.

 

 

40 minutes ago, w6kd said:

First, VRAM usage and frame rate aren't really correlated.  If you were expecting better frame rates due to more VRAM your expectations weren't realistic to begin with.

VRAM usage is driven by video resolution, high-definition graphics, high LOD settings and post-processing like SSAA/SGSS.  Try LatinVFR's KMIA in a high-end acft add-on with 100% AIG traffic, 4096 textures, shadows, 5 layers of clouds, and rain, and you'll see VRAM usage that a lesser card wouldn't handle.  But yes, 24GB is overkill.  I wanted more than 11 but don't need 24...but 24 was the next step up, so 24 it is.

If you're seeing 15 fps with a 9900K (even though not overclocked) and a 3090, something else is amiss in your setup.  I get much better than that on my portable PC with a 9900K (at 5.0 GHz) and a 1080Ti driving a 2560x1440 G-Sync monitor.  You should find and fix that first before buying a new CPU/mobo--you may well not need it.  And if you do get a new CPU, the 10980XE would not be my choice (the XE stands for Xtremely Expensive)--either a 10-core i9-10900K/10850K or an 8-core i9-11900K would be far more cost effective.  And consider at least a moderate overclock on either your current or any future system to 5.0GHz or better--all of those CPUs will do that easily with a decent aftermarket CPU cooler.

I appreciate the help on here from people I know are knowledgeable on these things. I will post my entire specs, and the settings I've been running if that's ok, to hopefully get some suggestions from people more knowledgeable about such things than me.

43 minutes ago, WestEnd said:

I appreciate the help on here from people I know are knowledgeable on these things. I will post my entire specs, and the settings I've been running if that's ok, to hopefully get some suggestions from people more knowledgeable about such things than me.

From what you have shown us thus far, your system appears to be running correctly.  The CPU core loads look normal.

Before spending another penny, tell us one more time what you are actually trying to achieve...

"More fps" or "higher VRAM usage" can easily become a self defeating quest.

What kind of airplanes do you like to fly? What is your real world aviation experience?

Edited July 17, 20214 yr by Bert Pieke

1 hour ago, w6kd said:

And consider at least a moderate overclock on either your current or any future system

The CPU graph shows the CPU at 4.7 GHz which should be adequate... 😉