A while ago I decided I was fed up chasing FPS so I went and got a good PC, with 11900 intel CPU and a 3090 GPU.

As soon as it arrived I put up most of the texture options to ultra with LOD at 200 and removed the bloom and camera lense selections. With a default aircraft I can now set the FPS to 30 on my triple screens running with 3840x1280.

I am now finding that with more detailed airports and the complex aircraft, my FPS is diminishing, sometimes down to 10-20.

I have read that others are getting better results but I think my issues are due to running 3 separate monitors, so my GPU has to push out 3x signals.

 I would love to get an ultra wide screen but wonder if it would actually improve FPS if it was a single panel or would just be the same problem?

Is there anything else I could do to improve things with my current setup as triple screens really enhance the surround feel of flying but I’m now on the limit unless I crank back the visual settings?

7 minutes ago, chickster25 said:

I am now finding that with more detailed airports and the complex aircraft, my FPS is diminishing, sometimes down to 10-20.

Detailed airports have always been "the straw that broke the camel's back"... Not sure that changing your screens would solve that issue..  No matter how much hardware you provide, someone will release an addon that will bring the system to its knees..

That was true in FSX, P3D, and again in MSFS.. 😉

Suggest dialing back the detail settings until the performance becomes acceptable.. at least when visiting these airports..

I cannot speak for MSFS as I no longer have a triple monitor setup to test, so with P3D when I moved from my single 27" to (3) 24" I dropped almost exactly 40% in FPS. But worth it for the wide view. I used that setup for five years until moving to a single 38" and happily have gained most of my framerate back.

Try reducing the off screen terrain caching to high or medium

2 hours ago, chickster25 said:

 I would love to get an ultra wide screen but wonder if it would actually improve FPS if it was a single panel or would just be the same problem?

more or less, yes! Bear in mind, that the number of pixel-information is dramatically increased by running 4k x 3 screens. This consumes most of the render power of the system. If you use a single display at a resolution by 3.840x2160, there are 8.294.400 single pixel which needs to be feed with color and contrast information for every single frame rendered in realtime. These Pixels get data for the colormix they have to show up plus the parameters of grayscale between black and white for the contrast. 

Talking about 3 screens at 4K resolution need 24.883.200 pixels rendered for each single frame. At 30 FPS this would mean the CPU and the GPU have to compute for  746.496.000 Pixel every single second. (well, in fact not always "every" single pixel is rendered for a frame, but that´s a different story)

If you consume the same amount of pixel just on one single ultra wide screen, you would need more or less the same power as for 3 screens. Makes sense?!

You need to find the balance which works best for you compared between high resolution and high graphic settings. At least as long we have no more boosters by software, like DLSS, DirectX12 or even more powerfull CPU´s and GPU´s. Maybe the RTX 4000 will bring us a step further again.  

Edited August 1, 20223 yr by BerndB

4 hours ago, kand said:

Try reducing the off screen terrain caching to high or medium

I don't think I've heard of this setting before. Is it in the "general settings"? 

6 hours ago, Bdub22 said:

I don't think I've heard of this setting before. Is it in the "general settings"? 

Yes, it is in the general settings.

Myself I use a dual view setup (2x 4K) on a 12900K/3090/M2/liquid cooled setup and the fps never go below 30. LOD 180/170. Offscreen terrain caching at Ultra.

I have set my CPU to automatically overlocking  (turbo speed) which means that with heavier scenery it will run faster. Up to 5.3 GHz.

A 11900 has a turbo speed of max 5.2 GHz. Is turbo speed enabled in the Bios ?
 

 

Edited August 2, 20223 yr by GSalden

10 hours ago, BerndB said:

more or less, yes! Bear in mind, that the number of pixel-information is dramatically increased by running 4k x 3 screens. This consumes most of the render power of the system. If you use a single display at a resolution by 3.840x2160, there are 8.294.400 single pixel which needs to be feed with color and contrast information for every single frame rendered in realtime. These Pixels get data for the colormix they have to show up plus the parameters of grayscale between black and white for the contrast. 

Talking about 3 screens at 4K resolution need 24.883.200 pixels rendered for each single frame. At 30 FPS this would mean the CPU and the GPU have to compute for  746.496.000 Pixel every single second. (well, in fact not always "every" single pixel is rendered for a frame, but that´s a different story)

If you consume the same amount of pixel just on one single ultra wide screen, you would need more or less the same power as for 3 screens. Makes sense?!

You need to find the balance which works best for you compared between high resolution and high graphic settings. At least as long we have no more boosters by software, like DLSS, DirectX12 or even more powerfull CPU´s and GPU´s. Maybe the RTX 4000 will bring us a step further again.  

If I am running 3x screens with MSFS displaying at 3840x2180 across the three,  then is this the same output (in pixels) as a single ultra wide at the same resolution?

Edited August 2, 20223 yr by chickster25
Change of text

17 minutes ago, chickster25 said:

If I am running 3x screens with MSFS displaying at 3840x2180 across the three,  then is this the same output (in pixels) as a single ultra wide at the same resolution?

I don't think a single ultra wide screen with that resolution exists. Are you sure you are running at 3840x2180 and not  3840x1080 instead ? 3840x2180 is 16:9 resolution, so it very unusual to be used across 3 screens.

Ultra-wide screens are usually 3840x1080, or 5120x1440, so they cover the same area as TWO 16:9 screen either in 1080 or 1440 res. Even 5120x1440 is 7.5M-pixel, so it's a little bit less than a regular 3840x2180 4K single screen so, if your system can run a regular single 4K, you should expect basically the same fps (if not slightly better) with a 5120x1440 ultra-wide.

1 minute ago, virtuali said:

I don't think a single ultra wide screen with that resolution exists. Are you sure you are running at 3840x2180 and not  3840x1080 instead ? 3840x2180 is 16:9 resolution, so it very unusual to be used across 3 screens.

Ultra-wide screens are usually 3840x1080, or 5120x1440, so they cover the same area as TWO 16:9 screen either in 1080 or 1440 res. Even 5120x1440 is 7.5M-pixel, so it's a little bit less than a regular 3840x2180 4K single screen so, if your system can run a regular single 4K, you should expect basically the same fps (if not slightly better) with a 5120x1440 ultra-wide.

Yes sorry, I’m running at 3840 x1080 (couldn’t remember as not in front of PC right now).

Its more a question of a direct comparison between triples vs a single ultra wide at the same resolution?

Best ultrawide I ever used was 3840x1600 so that it had some more vertical view too. 

16 hours ago, chickster25 said:

A while ago I decided I was fed up chasing FPS so I went and got a good PC, with 11900 intel CPU and a 3090 GPU.

As soon as it arrived I put up most of the texture options to ultra with LOD at 200 and removed the bloom and camera lense selections. With a default aircraft I can now set the FPS to 30 on my triple screens running with 3840x1280.

I am now finding that with more detailed airports and the complex aircraft, my FPS is diminishing, sometimes down to 10-20.

I have read that others are getting better results but I think my issues are due to running 3 separate monitors, so my GPU has to push out 3x signals.

 I would love to get an ultra wide screen but wonder if it would actually improve FPS if it was a single panel or would just be the same problem?

Is there anything else I could do to improve things with my current setup as triple screens really enhance the surround feel of flying but I’m now on the limit unless I crank back the visual settings?

I have recently done, give or take, the exact same thing as you and have an 19-11900K system (5.3Gigs) with an RTX3080Ti driving 3 x 1240x1024 monitors via the 3 x DisplayPorts.

Performance is excellent, for example, ~45fps with Fenix A320 parked at iniScene's EGLL, ~55fps at same location but with FBWA320, both live traffic, rainy conditions. Although, frames are now locked at 30fps via RTSS.  Similar settings to yours although I've limited LOD to 150.

For reference at 30fps locked, main thread is ~23msec, and GPU thread ~8msec, with ~45% GPU usage.

Have you overclocked your CPU ?

I haven’t overclocked so far as I didn’t want to stress my system more than I needed to, plus was hoping that the new DLSS update might give a few extra FPS.

I think I’m just wondering if it’s harder for the GPU to run three screens rather than just a single ultra wide one

47 minutes ago, garydpoole said:

3 x 1240x1024

That’s only 3.8 million pixels. For comparison 4K is 8.2 million 

55 minutes ago, chickster25 said:

I haven’t overclocked so far as I didn’t want to stress my system more than I needed to, plus was hoping that the new DLSS update might give a few extra FPS.

I think I’m just wondering if it’s harder for the GPU to run three screens rather than just a single ultra wide one

Overclocking, if correctly done, shouldn't overly stress your system, especially if you limit the frames to say, 30fps. This can see a significant reduction in the temperatures that both the CPU and GPU run at.

I believe that the base clock speed of the i9-11900K is 3.5GHz, hence, yours is significantly less than my 5.3GHz, hence, the potential difference is performance ?

I would suggest that you enter Dev Mode and bring up the FPS counter. From there you should be able to ascertain via the respective thread times, whether your system is limited by the CPU or the GPU.