@brucewtb, have you conducted your test yet? The reason I performed it was to give you a reference point so you could compare your results to mine.

Looking at the load on my GPU it was very low so I suspect the fps was limited by CPU power, not GPU.

I’d expect the 2000 and 3000 series to perform better with multiple thick cloud layers with EA enabled and Volumetric Clouds at a high setting. As I have neither enabled the fps was relatively good for my old 1080Ti.

Sorry Ray I have been pre occupied  trying to get a clean reinstall of FSDT's addon manager and associated stuff.  It has been a much more time consuming and complicated process than one might have expected but nearly there.

Bruce

Don’t worry Bruce, no rush.

I finally got around to repeating Ray's tests - this is what I got using the same Schipol scenario.  In my case a PMDG 737NGX using a 3080ti at 4K. I only used shift Z and yes the FPS are quite erratic so these are my best estimates and all taken from the cockpit view.  What I did find is that FPS tended to increase as you let the rotation continue.  So perhaps some evidence here that with a high end card FPS is better with EA on and VC on which is not what you would expect.  But I guess as the numbers are all quite high for a 4K display none of this matters that much and you may as well stick to what looks best.

Bruce

• With EA=Off and HDR=Off it varied from 46-50
• With EA=On; HDR=On and VC Off it varied from 42-45
• With EA=On; HDR=On and VC at Low it varied from 50-60
• With EA=On; HDR=On and VC at Medium it varied from 47-54
• With EA=On; HDR=On and VC at High it varied from 50-60
• With EA=On; HDR=On and VC at Ultra it varied from 54-60

Bruce, interesting you don’t have any fps higher than 60. Did you have VSync enabled on a monitor running at 60Hz?

Higher fps as I expected than my 1080Ti.

Vsync not enabled but at 4K with high settings.  Non OC 9900KF cpu but with turbo boost runs at 4800 ghz most of the time.  I have had it OC'd as high as 5.2 ghz but the consensus seems to be that OC is best avoided with MSFS2020.  Not worth the hassle to OC just for P3D. I normally have vsync enabled so I try to adjust settings so as not to go below 30 fps -  the refresh rate of my Sony TV.  A while back I swapped out my 8086K for a 9900KF that I have had in my collection of bits.  This gave me two more physical cores and on benchmarks a big performance boost at least with HT on but this never translated to P3D.  It does run cooler though which I was not expecting but I guess that could be due to a getting more effective thermal connection at installation.  I would like to run P3D5 with just the 2D clouds but oddly on my system there does appear to be a performance cost if I do so.  I do think that the "look and feel" of P3D5 has changed as we have moved from 5.0 through 5.1, 5.2 and now 5.3.  The performance boost I saw on moving from 4.5 to 5.0 doesn't seem to be there now even allowing for the slightly lower clock speed my cpu now runs at.- perhaps offset by other "enhancements" .But most users seem to like the latest version so it seems I am the odd one out.  I am unapologetic in my enthusiasm for MSFS2020 but I am also a fan of high end commercial aircraft from the major developers and apart from the PMDG 737  they aren't coming to the new sim any time soon.  So I will be using P3D for some time and will have to get it working for me as best I can.

Bruce

Bruce, for the most fluid performance I would recommend VSync is on with a 30Hz display. It took me a long time to accept that 30fps can be as fluid as 45fps but eventually the penny dropped.

15 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Bruce, for the most fluid performance I would recommend VSync is on with a 30Hz display. It took me a long time to accept that 30fps can be as fluid as 45fps but eventually the penny dropped.

Thanks Ray that is what I normally do.

Bruce

22 hours ago, brucewtb said:

This gave me two more physical cores and on benchmarks a big performance boost at least with HT on but this never translated to P3D.

More cores or HT enabled is difficult to see what affect this has on P3D because more cores won't give you higher fps. Instead more cores, and especially HT enabled, improves the performance of gathering file data into the objects and models and scenery, and this completes the gathering of the same amount of data but in less time, think in terms of fill-in performance. Also networking is improved, i.e SimConnect. Consequently I can see on many careful test procedures that more cores (up to a point) or better, HT enabled, improves the consistency in the main task which results in a more stable fps at the vsync. But no, we don't get more fps. When the back end links more data more efficiently to the main task it can reduce the ultimate fps capacity slightly but becomes more consistent with less spikes in the flow. With less linkage from the back end the fps can spring up to look like more fps because, put simply, it's got less data coming in.

Edited February 25, 20224 yr by SteveW

6 minutes ago, SteveW said:

More cores or HT enabled is difficult to see what affect this has on P3D because more cores won't give you higher fps. Instead more cores, and especially HT enabled, improves the performance of gathering file data into the objects and models and scenery, and this completes the gathering of the same amount of data but in less time, think in terms of fill-in performance. Also networking is improved, i.e SimConnect. Consequently I can see on many careful test procedures that more cores (up to a point) or better, HT enabled, improves the consistency in the main task which results in a more stable fps at the vsync. But no, we don't get more fps. When the back end links more data more efficiently to the main task it can reduce the ultimate fps capacity slightly but becomes more consistent with less spikes in the flow. With less linkage from the back end the fps can spring up to look like more fps because, put simply, it's got less data coming in.

Thanks Steve for that explanation.

Bruce