Won't come into play on a 3440x1440 which was my entire point, and when you already have absolute maximum image quality settings, butter smooth and stutter-free, even if a few electrons ever lit up the top half of that VRAM, there will be absolutely zero benefit.   Right now there is far more need for better main thread performance than twice the VRAM--if only 3090 had a better GPU, but unfortunately it doesn't, and 2 lbs worth of irrelevant VRAM is just that.  And just between me and you, the number of instances where 18.2Gb even on your 4K display came into play I'll venture a guess was rather low.   I base that on the same logic as to why I rarely see more than 9Gb in use, and that is with RTSS.  Speaking of RTSS:  over LA w/ Bijan's fall colors which soaked up about .5Gb of VRAM--still barely to 8Gb:

Edited November 7, 20214 yr by Noel

It boggles my mind how it seems so much more cost effective to buy a whole system than just a gpu.

I would agree that the 3080 is probably a sweet spot for performance/price and running MSFS at 4K. However, anything you can get at MSRP is a good deal at this point. I was in the EVGA queue for a 3080 and a 3080Ti. The 3080 basically didn't move but the Ti's did. So that's what I ended up with. More money, more memory, more cuda cores and more Tensor cores. Most of all though, obtainable. So it was an easy choice. 

Pre SU5 I used to see 15 GB + VRAM usage in MSFS. After SU5 it went back down to 6-7 GB. Then after the Hotfix and SU6, it's back up to 10 - 12 GB or so in complex scenery. 

Other games I play like Division 2 will regularly use 15 GB + VRAM. 

My record is 22gb vram New York City, with Feelthere KLGA, rkbridge New York City bridges, Samscene New York landmarks and Crj 700 In 4K and with terrain level detail of 400 all settings on ultra and maxed out

had fps between 30 and 40

i don’t know what will happen with a normal 3080 with 10gb of vram in this scene.

so I would always spend the 1,5k on the 3090 FE, when compared to any 3rd party 3080 or 3080ti

 

Edited November 7, 20214 yr by Bam2000

I paid £1680 for my 3090 after sending another back which cost £1599 and I wasn’t  happy with.

since then I’ve had 10months of gaming with absolutely no regrets.

live for today and buy what you can afford - what everyone else does is none of your business frankly 👍

 

btw - anyone want to buy a 3900x? Collection only Bristol UK.

Edited November 7, 20214 yr by hanhamreds

2 hours ago, Bam2000 said:

i don’t know what will happen with a normal 3080 with 10gb of vram in this scene

There are definitely people w/ 3080 with 4K displays or other w/ GPUs w/ 10-12Gb. There is some anecdote that the more VRAM available, the more is used.  And what is not at all clear is how that affects the end result:  what's displayed.  This general rule is clear:  somehow, MSFS manages to deliver on less VRAM than these reports of exceptional amounts of VRAM reported in this thread.   

On a related note:  in the air I can run Terrain LOD anywhere at 400 and beaucoup VRAM still untapped in the 787 HD (3440x1440).  However, for example on approach into KSFO in weather as I got to the ground it was the main thread that started to become compromised such that I was unable to maintain the critical 30fps for vsync to 30 by the time the plane touched down--went all the way to 25/26 fps.  VRAM was around 8.8Gb, GPU load 70-74%, but CPU load was 90-96%.  And the paltry increases in single-thread perf in more recent CPUs would not overcome this.  It took dialing back LOD-T all the way to 220 before solid 30fps was restored and this was evident looking at Dev Mode's monitor it took that to go from CPU to alternating CPU/GPU limiting.  I'm hoping Asobo works to intelligently and dynamically optimize LOD at ground level since very often terrain detail at 400 isn't going to even be visible most of the time while taxiing around big airports and especially on flat terrain it just does not comes into play.  If you've gazing w/ a magnifying glass to the distant mountains to ascertain a difference you're probably not paying attention to piloting the plane.  And while you can crank LOD out farther still there is an absolute point of diminishing returns because of aerosols and clouds etc such that you can't really see the detail anyway.  

4 minutes ago, Noel said:

There are definitely people w/ 3080 with 4K displays or other w/ GPUs w/ 10-12Gb. There is some anecdote that the more VRAM available, the more is used.  And what is not at all clear is how that affects the end result:  what's displayed.  This general rule is clear:  somehow, MSFS manages to deliver on less VRAM than these reports of exceptional amounts of VRAM reported in this thread.   

On a related note:  in the air I can run Terrain LOD anywhere at 400 and beaucoup VRAM still untapped in the 787 HD (3440x1440).  However, for example on approach into KSFO in weather as I got to the ground it was the main thread that started to become compromised such that I was unable to maintain the critical 30fps for vsync to 30 by the time the plane touched down--went all the way to 25/26 fps.  VRAM was around 8.8Gb, GPU load 70-74%, but CPU load was 90-96%.  And the paltry increases in single-thread perf in more recent CPUs would not overcome this.  It took dialing back LOD-T all the way to 220 before solid 30fps was restored and this was evident looking at Dev Mode's monitor it took that to go from CPU to alternating CPU/GPU limiting.  I'm hoping Asobo works to intelligently and dynamically optimize LOD at ground level since very often terrain detail at 400 isn't going to even be visible most of the time while taxiing around big airports and especially on flat terrain it just does not comes into play.  If you've gazing w/ a magnifying glass to the distant mountains to ascertain a difference you're probably not paying attention to piloting the plane.  And while you can crank LOD out farther still there is an absolute point of diminishing returns because of aerosols and clouds etc such that you can't really see the detail anyway.  

They currently have 21 level of LOD. you think we need more ?

18 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

They currently have 21 level of LOD. you think we need more ?

No Claude, less.

I bought a MSI 3080ti for 1300 pounds about 3 months ago, never had a regret. Amazing card. 

25 minutes ago, Noel said:

No Claude, less.

Why do I feel like people are using my first name when they are angry at me...I know my ex used to do that....There is a cost to pay for less LOD and maintaining image quality and that is very CPU intensive. 

5 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

There is a cost to pay for less LOD and maintaining image quality and that is very CPU intensive. 

You lost me there, Monsieur Desrosiers

20 minutes ago, Noel said:

You lost me there, Monsieur Desrosiers

Draw call : A draw call is a call to the graphics API to draw objects. The higher the LOD that you maintain at a certain quality (polygon or texture) will require more CPU cycle. This is why the game reduce quality over 21 different lod to try to reduce CPU usage.

Yes I had said Terrain LOD greatly impacted CPU load, so I think we're in agreement I just don't understand the '21 different LOD' is all.

6 minutes ago, Noel said:

Yes I had said Terrain LOD greatly impacted CPU load, so I think we're in agreement I just don't understand the '21 different LOD' is all.

Think about it this way. imagine 21 circle of LOD around your aircraft, the further you go away from your position, the less and less texture quality / polygon count. This is because Asobo is try to managed a "budget" of what they can render at any given time. So when you pick LOD 200, That's 200 is near the aircraft, as you go further away , that numbers go down