6 minutes ago, Noel said:

Thanks again for that.   Here is my forecast for what I need this GPU upgrade for:

1. I would like to move O-LOD to around 140, from 100-110 I'm at now.
2. Move T-LOD to 180 or so from the 150 I'm at now.
3. I would like to be able to always have Volumetric Clouds at Ultra.  Now I'm at Ultra, except at a complex airport when there is weather when GPU gets nailed to 99% so I will have to dial back to High on the ground, but nearly as soon as I'm off the ground almost always I can set clouds back to Ultra.
4. I have most other sliders at High now, and a few at Ultra like Terrain Textures and Vector data at Ultra.
5. I definitely want to be able to cope w/ PMDG NG when it arrives, but I'm thinking if DC-6 is any indication it may not be horrifically hard on performance.

I don't have any desire to future proof per se, just be able to run MSFS w/o the need to stop and adjust sliders that is the entire agenda for me.  I don't mind setting some sliders at High as the difference between High and Ultra visually is often imperceptible to me, at 3440x1440 16xAF, 8xSS.  Render scaling will stay at 100.  I say no future proof because my next full build will be about 4y from now, so whatever is high end then I will be looking for, and 3090 will not be high end at that point for certain.

Since I am not looking at 4-8k, and don't require all sliders hard right, I do think the 3080 Ti should be fine.

Agree, 3080 Ti should be plenty.  I dont upgrade often , I got 5yrs out of my GTX1080. I'm expecting about 6 to 7 out of the 3090. We shall see.  It's getting more difficult for them to squeeze performance out of the video cards and from generation to generation the performance hasn't been substantial. I can wait a few releases before I buy again. 

Not using any of the two cards in this comparison but i believe the rest of my specs match what you were asking for.

My FS config is "stock ultra" with no modifications except for Render scaling. Resolution is 3440x1440

Render scale 110

Seeing VRAM numbers mostly in the 11gigs spiking to 12gigs in the NYC area.

Even with the optimizations coming i would still get a 3090 over the 3080ti if i could afford it. Theres still a lot more to come in regards to addons for this sim. You don't want to be caught out flat footed.

Edited July 25, 20214 yr by Maxis

The 3080 seems to be more than enough... 3080ti may be overkill and less bang/$ really.

Thank you Maxis.  FWIW, I'm fine w/ not running stock ultra as I simply can't ascertain enough differnces in most of those parameters between High and Ultra.  This was not anticipated by me but whenever I compare to be frank I can't tell the difference and it's not for lack of AF/AA I'm maxed out there.  Of course that was not the case w/ P3D you could change parameters and see obvious differences it's just so much less so here.  Clouds are easy to see differences so this is why I am aiming for Ultra on Clouds all the time, Vector data and Texture Resolution quality as well.  Where are your LOD settings at?

So in reality, I do have some headroom over what you're seeing which you mention spikes to 12g in certain areas because I have a lot of settings on High.  Would you mind duplicating my settings precisely and relook at areas where you catch those spikes?  Render Scalling doesn't seem to affect VRAM so leave that where you like it.  This would be hugely helpful.  I know for sure what you're saying, so have to decide if I should spend more for 3090 or not.  And right now, despite the safety of doing this, I'm still thinking I may rarely if ever use the top 12Gb of VRAM in it.  And then there is SU5.  But yes I understand your point for sure.  The settings below will let me land at complex spots like KSFO w/o dropping below 30fps, and if there is weather I'm backing out to dial back clouds to High, and that is in the Citation L.

Here you go:

38 minutes ago, Noel said:

Thank you Maxis.  FWIW, I'm fine w/ not running stock ultra as I simply can't ascertain enough differnces in most of those parameters between High and Ultra.  This was not anticipated by me but whenever I compare to be frank I can't tell the difference and it's not for lack of AF/AA I'm maxed out there.  Of course that was not the case w/ P3D you could change parameters and see obvious differences it's just so much less so here.  Clouds are easy to see differences so this is why I am aiming for Ultra on Clouds all the time, Vector data and Texture Resolution quality as well.  Where are your LOD settings at?

So in reality, I do have some headroom over what you're seeing which you mention spikes to 12g in certain areas because I have a lot of settings on High.  Would you mind duplicating my settings precisely and relook at areas where you catch those spikes?  Render Scalling doesn't seem to affect VRAM so leave that where you like it.  This would be hugely helpful.  I know for sure what you're saying, so have to decide if I should spend more for 3090 or not.  And right now, despite the safety of doing this, I'm still thinking I may rarely if ever use the top 12Gb of VRAM in it.  And then there is SU5.  But yes I understand your point for sure.  The settings below will let me land at complex spots like KSFO w/o dropping below 30fps, and if there is weather I'm backing out to dial back clouds to High, and that is in the Citation L.

Here you go:

 

Just tried with the settings above

Sitting mostly at 9.8 gigs breaking into 10 occasionally. Same area NYC circling Manhattan island. Left the render scale alone.

As to your question regarding my LOD settings In the previous scenario they are maxed out ...Stock Ultra maxes them out. Any changes to them automatically changes the setting from Ultra to Custom. I faithfully recreated all the settings you posted with the exception of Render scale which i left at 110 to get the 9.8-10.1 GB VRAM.

Hope that helps.

 

Cheers and good luck!

Edited July 25, 20214 yr by Maxis

Thank you so much Maxis that definitely helps.  If SU5 gives another 20% of VRAM back it sure seems like I will be okay all things considered, w/ some headroom left for PMDG NG.  It helps that I don't demand running all settings at Ultra so if DX-12 ends up stealing some of that VRAM back I should still have some headroom it would appear.  I would like to run T-LOD at 200, which for the most part I can get away with fine even now w/ the 2070 Super.  Another caveat is I rarely fly into the most complex cities I am much more intrigued by the rest of the planet!  That might change w/ PMDG NG or 777 when we have to fly out of the bigger terminals.

Again-thanks!

Just been through this 3080ti vs 3090 dilemma and I reckon no matter what decision you make there is going to be some buyers remorse.  I was all set to pull the trigger on a 3080ti as the asking price in Australia dropped to what the 2080ti was selling for 2 years ago.  But then I did some more tests and at my 4K resolution I found it very easy to hit 10 gigs VRAM with my current 1080ti and using the settings above sitting at YSSY on rwy 34L with live weather and clear conditions VRAM is at 10.7.  Not much headroom there with the 12 gigs the 3080ti offers even allowing for what SU5 might bring.  So  with gritted teeth I went for the 3090.  Time will tell if I made the right decision.

Bruce

6 hours ago, brucewtb said:

Just been through this 3080ti vs 3090 dilemma and I reckon no matter what decision you make there is going to be some buyers remorse.  I was all set to pull the trigger on a 3080ti as the asking price in Australia dropped to what the 2080ti was selling for 2 years ago.  But then I did some more tests and at my 4K resolution I found it very easy to hit 10 gigs VRAM with my current 1080ti and using the settings above sitting at YSSY on rwy 34L with live weather and clear conditions VRAM is at 10.7.  Not much headroom there with the 12 gigs the 3080ti offers even allowing for what SU5 might bring.  So  with gritted teeth I went for the 3090.  Time will tell if I made the right decision.

Bruce

Bruce if I were using 4K I would have gone 3090 for sure you made the right choice.  The argument for 1440p ultrawide I think is where it gets a little more equivocal.   If you're using standard 4K your GPU has to render a massive 67% more pixels.  In terms of pixel density, the difference isn't nearly as large as pixels per square area since some of those go to fill the taller aspect ratio in standard 4K in terms of image quality.   For example the 34" screen I'm using at 3440x1440 has 110 pixels per square inch, whereas a 34" 4K screen will have just under 130 pixels per inch.  I prefer ultra wide format as that aspect ratio seems to go w/ with flight simulation where side to side view kind of fits w/ the aspect ratio of airplane windscreens.   With my next build, circa 2025 or so, I will be looking at 2160p, or ultra wide 4K, and an NV Series 5000 by then.  I'm pretty much sold on 3080Ti it seems about right for what I'm doing.  Plus the gargantuan size and nearly double the weight of the 3090 just seems bizarre when you think about the primary difference is a few grams worth of VRAM .

Can you tell I'm trying very hard to get settled on 3080Ti!

For 1440p today the 3080 is fine. On Tuesday it should be really good. A 2080 ti is probably fine too after Tuesday. 

I didn't really need to go thru all the hand wringing I had already figured it out when I realized I can almost do everything I need to do now, pre update, w/ 8Gb of VRAM and 50% less processing power that the 2070 Super offers.  Alas, it's a lot of $$ so I wanted to be sure.   I will go ahead and install the new GPU soon for sure.

7 hours ago, brucewtb said:

Just been through this 3080ti vs 3090 dilemma and I reckon no matter what decision you make there is going to be some buyers remorse.  I was all set to pull the trigger on a 3080ti as the asking price in Australia dropped to what the 2080ti was selling for 2 years ago.  But then I did some more tests and at my 4K resolution I found it very easy to hit 10 gigs VRAM with my current 1080ti and using the settings above sitting at YSSY on rwy 34L with live weather and clear conditions VRAM is at 10.7.  Not much headroom there with the 12 gigs the 3080ti offers even allowing for what SU5 might bring.  So  with gritted teeth I went for the 3090.  Time will tell if I made the right decision.

Bruce

Same observation here at 1440P , same card . Also at EKCH,ORBX Paris and London, Singapore 

Michael Moe

Edited July 25, 20214 yr by Michael Moe

12 minutes ago, Michael Moe said:

Same observation here at 1440P , same card . Also at EKCH,ORBX Paris and London, Singapore 

Michael Moe

That seems odd since you're at 1440p, presumably 3440x1440.  Here's what I see at YSSY, with the same settings, and these values (RTSS OSD) seem about right versus Bruces's report at 4K, therein is the penalty at 4K which in this comparison is about 54% greater VRAM used in 4K over 1440p.  I think this points to something I don't hear anything solid about, and that is how MSFS uses VRAM & SYS RAM.  They are optimizing for Xbox Series X, and even less Xbox One X, and the former only has 10Gb of VRAM to use in the role of VRAM, and the latter even less.  You can see I'm only needing just over 7Gb of VRAM and there is some weather as well.  Perhaps the clouds are adding the difference between 54% and the predicted 67% difference between 3440x1440 and standard 4K:

 

VRAM usage @4k has too many variables. 

Altitude, weather and Scenery environments.  Fly low over London City with the Orbx addon for it and I can nearly max it out..  A few hundred feet higher and it starts dropping off.  

 

 

Edited July 25, 20214 yr by styckx

4 hours ago, Noel said:

That seems odd since you're at 1440p, presumably 3440x1440.  Here's what I see at YSSY, with the same settings, and these values (RTSS OSD) seem about right versus Bruces's report at 4K, therein is the penalty at 4K which in this comparison is about 54% greater VRAM used in 4K over 1440p.  I think this points to something I don't hear anything solid about, and that is how MSFS uses VRAM & SYS RAM.  They are optimizing for Xbox Series X, and even less Xbox One X, and the former only has 10Gb of VRAM to use in the role of VRAM, and the latter even less.  You can see I'm only needing just over 7Gb of VRAM and there is some weather as well.  Perhaps the clouds are adding the difference between 54% and the predicted 67% difference between 3440x1440 and standard 4K:

 

Yeah strange indeed

Here taken from London with few clouds

 

https://ibb.co/NgvzMmD

 

https://ibb.co/Pm9M13f

It even cranks higher to 11,1 GB

Michael Moe

Edited July 25, 20214 yr by Michael Moe

Apparently it doesn't really like more VRAM