So I know this is only going to get better when my 4090 arrives the end of this week but I am extremely pleased at the moment.  Even without DLSS the raw HW gains of the 4090 could be enough to push my setup to a near constant 60FPS.

Background:  I have a 12700K with a 3080.  Despite FPS being fine the overall performance of P3D wasn't great.  Ground Textures popping in/out as they sharpened for example, object popping in and out as I panned, textures taking too long to load etc.  

This week I changed a couple of things.  Previously I was running my P3DCoreAffinityMask for a 12 Core 20 thread CPU.  This week I changed my AM to an 8 Core.  Just the P-Cores.   This made an immense difference in draw times/clarity!  I had this in ProcessLasso already but for some reason setting it in the P3D.cfg seems to have had a massive impact.

AffinityMask=1048575
P3DCoreAffinityMask=349525
MainThreadScheduler=0
RenderThreadScheduler=1
FrameWorkerThreadScheduler

I also moved the remaining helper apps to the -E cores which just enhanced the fluidity.

Finally I changed this entry:  TextureMaxLoad=36   which resolved items popping in/out as I pan.  Every object as far as the eye can see is loaded.  I also haven't seen any performance hits as a result.  Same stellar performance just massively enhanced visuals. 

From my perspective this is P3D heaven.  Funny thing is there became a point with FS9 where the HW surpassed the SW and you could essentially go full right with all the settings and just enjoy the platform as good as it could get.  I now feel the same way about P3D where I can probably throw just about anything at it and simply be happy.  Sim Nirvana 🙂  

Just my personal experience, not sure if those changes/entries would help anyone else.  Bring on the 4090 🙂 

Your core affinity mask (349525), expressed in binary form, is 01010101010101010101, and to parse it by physical processors is  0 1 0 1 (e-cores)    01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 (p-cores)

So what you think you're doing isn't actually what you're doing--you have prevented P3D from using the paired virtual CPUs on the 8 P-cores, and you do still have P3D using two of your four E-cores.  The performance gain you're seeing is likely due to not allowing high-load processes (the main thread especially) from sharing a core and thus being constantly preempted rather than running unimpeded.

If your intent is to only run on the 8 P-cores without P3D threads sharing any of the cores, your core affinity mask should be 21845 (0101010101010101) with HT on, or 255 (11111111) with HT off.

I don't think the 4090 is going to make a whole lot of difference in P3D performance to tell you the truth.  The performance increase you'll realize depends on where you're starting from, and you already use a 3080.

I use a 2070 and i7-8700 and performance is very good.  My video memory usage never exceeds 5GB and my video card barely breaks a sweat even when rendering some detailed payware airport scenery.

I do plan on upgrading soon to an Intel i7-13700 processor, DDR5 memory, 4070 video card, and faster SSDs, and I expect that I'll see some benefit, but I'm not expecting a huge performance increase.

P3D's scenery engine is limited in its abilities, and no matter how much super duper hardware you throw at it, it can only do so much.

But, hey, if you want to spend nearly $2,000 on a video card then more power to you.

Just my 2c.

Dave

5 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I don't think the 4090 is going to make a whole lot of difference in P3D performance to tell you the truth.  The performance increase you'll realize depends on where you're starting from, and you already use a 3080.

I use a 2070 and i7-8700 and performance is very good.  My video memory usage never exceeds 5GB and my video card barely breaks a sweat even when rendering some detailed payware airport scenery.

I do plan on upgrading soon to an Intel i7-13700 processor, DDR5 memory, 4070 video card, and faster SSDs, and I expect that I'll see some benefit, but I'm not expecting a huge performance increase.

P3D's scenery engine is limited in its abilities, and no matter how much super duper hardware you throw at it, it can only do so much.

But, hey, if you want to spend nearly $2,000 on a video card then more power to you.

Just my 2c.

Dave

I just built a new P3D machine, moving from a 3090 to a 4090, and in high-demand GPU-centric scenarios (e.g. 5 layers of clouds in heavy weather with 4x or 8x SSAA, or SSAA at night with dynamic lighting) P3D running on the 4090 really shines.  One certainly doesn't need that much horsepower to have a good experience in P3D with a little discretion on slider settings, but that said, the horsepower can be put to good use.  As to the cost...the sign at a performance hot rod engine shop says "Performance costs money--tell us how much you want".

My previous 10900K + 3090 machine has been repurposed and is now a dedicated X-Plane box, which is the only kind of "Xbox" that's gonna find a place here.  😉

8 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

Your core affinity mask (349525), expressed in binary form, is 01010101010101010101, and to parse it by physical processors is  0 1 0 1 (e-cores)    01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 (p-cores)

So what you think you're doing isn't actually what you're doing--you have prevented P3D from using the paired virtual CPUs on the 8 P-cores, and you do still have P3D using two of your four E-cores.  The performance gain you're seeing is likely due to not allowing high-load processes (the main thread especially) from sharing a core and thus being constantly preempted rather than running unimpeded.

If your intent is to only run on the 8 P-cores without P3D threads sharing any of the cores, your core affinity mask should be 21845 (0101010101010101) with HT on, or 255 (11111111) with HT off.

Doh!!  #facepalm Thank you Bob!!  Appreciate the correction and clarification.  The whole AM thing has always confused me and I am indeed still learning apparently!  I am extremely pleased with the performance and results at the moment but I am going to try what you suggested as that is indeed my desired outcome.  I will say I got my values from the P3D affinity mask calculator tool because the binary is like a mind block for me for some reason LOL.  

8 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I don't think the 4090 is going to make a whole lot of difference in P3D performance to tell you the truth.  The performance increase you'll realize depends on where you're starting from, and you already use a 3080.

I use a 2070 and i7-8700 and performance is very good.  My video memory usage never exceeds 5GB and my video card barely breaks a sweat even when rendering some detailed payware airport scenery.

I do plan on upgrading soon to an Intel i7-13700 processor, DDR5 memory, 4070 video card, and faster SSDs, and I expect that I'll see some benefit, but I'm not expecting a huge performance increase.

P3D's scenery engine is limited in its abilities, and no matter how much super duper hardware you throw at it, it can only do so much.

But, hey, if you want to spend nearly $2,000 on a video card then more power to you.

Just my 2c.

Dave

Thanks Dave.   3080-4090 is a significant performance gain outside P3D BTW.  I'm excited for it and P3D isn't all I do with this PC so while the gains may be incremental in P3D I have other things that leverage DLSS3.0 and for that the 4090 is a game changer.     If it means I can crank my settings in P3D without any performance degradation then it's a win/win from my perspective.   P3D is still "maturing" on my system as I can crank higher and higher settings and deliver stronger performance without having to drop settings for a performance trade-off. 

No more balancing act.  Oh, and it wasn't $2,000, they are MSRP for $1,599... 

 

23 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

P3D running on the 4090 really shines

I don't doubt that you and psolk will see some performance increase, as the 4000 series video cards are much more powerful than previous generations based on what I've read about them.

I just don't believe the extra cost of a 4090 vs a 4070 or 4080 is worth the negligible performance gain.  I would be very surprised if anyone would notice much of a difference in P3D performance between a system running a 4070 or a 4090, all else being equal.

Of course this is solely my opinion, albeit one based on many years of experience and knowledge.  What is not debatable is that I will save about $600 compared to what you will spend.

Dave

Edited February 10, 20233 yr by dave2013

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

I don't doubt that you and psolk will see some performance increase, as the 4000 series video cards are much more powerful than previous generations based on what I've read about them.

I just don't believe the extra cost of a 4090 vs a 4070 or 4080 is worth the negligible performance gain.  I would be very surprised if anyone would notice much of a difference in P3D performance between a system running a 4070 or a 4090, all else being equal.

Of course this is solely my opinion, albeit one based on many years of experience and knowledge.  What is not debatable is that I will save about $600 compared to what you will spend.

Dave

Depends on resolution.  At 4K/5K or in VR you should absolutely see a difference even 4070 to 4090.   At 1080 or 1440 you are probably correct but at the higher resolutions the 4090 should show it's strengths... 

I am not debating what you spend vs what I spend.  I spend $3000 on a set of tires that last 60 minutes AND I require multiple sets for a weekend,  anyone comparing their spending habits to mine should seek financial counseling... 

$600 is a tank of gas on a lot of boats or a day of fuel at the track for my car.  It's all relative and not my place to question what others spend or what they spend it on.  

Funny story...

Friend had a wife who rode show horses.  They were like 30K per horse.  He had a Ferrari and wanted my performance specialists to build a custom exhaust to shed 30 pounds on the car and gain 30HP.  In total it was an almost 60HP net gain.  It also cost 30K.  

When his wife got upset he merely pointed out he got 60 horses for the price of her 1.  Like I said, it's all relative LOL  

2 hours ago, psolk said:

At 4K/5K or in VR you should absolutely see a difference even 4070 to 4090.

I agree that you will indeed see a difference between the 4070 and 4090, especially at such a high resolution.  I just don't think the small difference you'll realize is worth $600.  Obviously to you it's worth the extra cost, and that's all that matters.  I'm not criticizing your decision to get a 4090.  

This brings up another issue related to display resolution which is, again, debatable.  I don't think it's worth the extra cost to have a 4K display plus the more powerful hardware needed to process all those extra pixels, because unless you have a very large display, your eyes will not be able to detect the resolution difference between 2K and 4K.

In the end all that matters is that you are happy with your setup.

I just like to throw in my 2c every now and then, for what it's worth.

Dave 

On 2/10/2023 at 2:57 AM, psolk said:

Oh, and it wasn't $2,000, they are MSRP for $1,599...

I wish they were that price in Australia...

$2849~$3839

https://www.scorptec.com.au/product/graphics-cards/geforcertx4090?page=1

Cheers

 

13 hours ago, dave2013 said:

This brings up another issue related to display resolution which is, again, debatable.  I don't think it's worth the extra cost to have a 4K display plus the more powerful hardware needed to process all those extra pixels, because unless you have a very large display, your eyes will not be able to detect the resolution difference between 2K and 4K.

I respectfully disagree. As someone who had had a quality 32” BenQ 4K monitor for nearly four years the extra resolution of over 8 million pixels means every sub division on gauges is visible on complex panels like the Xtreme Prototypes Lear 25.

My somewhat old 1080Ti can still hack it especially with me limiting fps to 30 with VSync enabled and a monitor that can run natively at 30Hz.

14 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I agree that you will indeed see a difference between the 4070 and 4090, especially at such a high resolution.  I just don't think the small difference you'll realize is worth $600.  Obviously to you it's worth the extra cost, and that's all that matters.  I'm not criticizing your decision to get a 4090.  

This brings up another issue related to display resolution which is, again, debatable.  I don't think it's worth the extra cost to have a 4K display plus the more powerful hardware needed to process all those extra pixels, because unless you have a very large display, your eyes will not be able to detect the resolution difference between 2K and 4K.

In the end all that matters is that you are happy with your setup.

I just like to throw in my 2c every now and then, for what it's worth.

Dave 

Even on a smaller display the difference between 2K and 4K is very evident.  Not just clarity but the amount that can actually be rendered on the screen is drastically different.  In 5K on an ultrawide I have to pan far less than in 2K where I can't "fit" as much on screen.... 

Will you be able to see individual pixels 2 ft from a 4K display, not with anything other than 20/15 or better vision but will you see MORE on the screen, absolutely... 

I don't mind 2c from anyone as long as it's a good, authentic conversation.  🙂  I disagree with LOTS of people without it being personal, here and in real life LOL.  There are always some who don't like me for being blunt, honest and opinionated but I love me some devils advocate role playing.  All good Dave

As far as the system I have always gone with a 70/80 series card.  This is actually my first time going for a /90 series card and treating myself to the top of the line.  That is normally reserved for car purchases much to my wife's dismay!   

Edited February 11, 20233 yr by psolk

My display resolution choice has been very easy for a long time now. I have not had a top end PC for a couple of decades, so one of the compromises that I make is to stick @ 1920x1080 resolution on a 24" widescreen monitor. The fewer pixels that I have to shift around, the more detail I can render in my little virtual world

5 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

As someone who had had a quality 32” BenQ 4K monitor for nearly four years the extra resolution of over 8 million pixels means every sub division on gauges is visible on complex panels like the Xtreme Prototypes Lear 25.

No doubt the image will be sharper and you'll have more detail, but on a smaller display I don't think one's eyes can tell the difference between 2K and 4K.  I consider 32" to be a pretty large display, and more pixels has more of a discernible visual impact the larger the display.

This is just my opinion BTW.  I've never actually tested this.  However, I do know that our eyes have a limited resolving power.  I'm using a 27" 2K monitor and from 2 feet away I cannot see individual pixels.

Dave

Dave,

Anything less than 32" will be incredibly sharp but the size of the display will lessen the visual impact. I appreciate not everyone has unlimited space. Hence why I could never go for a 40+" display.

32" is the most popular size hence why you see so many models available at that size. Only a few do 27" in 4K.

Well I can report back that it is ~ 10FPS difference in the most taxing P3D scenario I have which is the QW787 at DD KEWR.  That's ~33% gain in that scenario.  Everywhere else I am locked at 60FPS LOL.

The kicker though was it was about even until I changed my settings from 2048 to 4096 textures, changed AA from 4X to 8X and INCREASED every setting to full right except bathymettry and tesselation I think.  Then my VRAM usage increased and my FPS INCREASED....  It's almost like the card wanted to work harder.

@dave2013 I'm not talking sharper and more detail specifically although that is a byproduct.   I am talking about the amount that you can fit on your screen.  You will see more of the cockpit and outside world with 4x the number of pixels being drawn.  So you just fit more scenery on the same size screen by increasing resolution.  With that said, 4K on a 27 inch would be very difficult for me to actually read LOL 

 

Edited February 11, 20233 yr by psolk