6 hours ago, psolk said:

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 

 

I'd like to see what the difference would be if you used a 4070 or 4080 vs your old 3080. 

As far as display resolution goes, I simply don't think the extra expense is worth the negligible gain you get in image quality.  However, what is negligible for me may be significant for someone else. 

Same thing goes for sim graphics settings.  I've played with the settings many, many times and I finally decided that having all the sliders set at their max just isn't worth the barely noticeable gain in image quality.  For example, I have texture resolution at 30cm, not 7cm like I used to, because the difference is minuscule.  Same for tessellation, shadow quality, anisotropic filtering(8x vs 16x), and AA(4x vs 8x SGAA), etc.  The highest settings just didn't improve things enough to make it worth the performance cost.

There's no right or wrong here as it is a subjective issue and what looks good to you is all that matters.  The only thing certain here, where hardware is concerned, is that I won't have to spend as much money as you did when I build my new computer.😉😛

Good simming.

Dave

Edited February 12, 20233 yr by dave2013

I have a Ryzen 5800X CPU, 3600 Mhz RAM and a 6900 XT GPU and I play P3Dv5 at 2K and I get 60 FPS or more easy with most settings cranked with the exception of the autogen density and tree density.  Those always kill my frame rates which is frustrating because turning them up makes the P3D world look more realistic, like having buildings everywhere there's supposed to be buildings instead of just 2D pictures of tops of buildings in towns and cities.

8 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I'd like to see what the difference would be if you used a 4070 or 4080 vs your old 3080. 

As far as display resolution goes, I simply don't think the extra expense is worth the negligible gain you get in image quality.  However, what is negligible for me may be significant for someone else. 

Same thing goes for sim graphics settings.  I've played with the settings many, many times and I finally decided that having all the sliders set at their max just isn't worth the barely noticeable gain in image quality.  For example, I have texture resolution at 30cm, not 7cm like I used to, because the difference is minuscule.  Same for tessellation, shadow quality, anisotropic filtering(8x vs 16x), and AA(4x vs 8x SGAA), etc.  The highest settings just didn't improve things enough to make it worth the performance cost.

There's no right or wrong here as it is a subjective issue and what looks good to you is all that matters.  The only thing certain here, where hardware is concerned, is that I won't have to spend as much money as you did when I build my new computer.😉😛

Good simming.

Dave

Two certainties...  You wont spend as much and the 4070/4080 will not produce the same results as a 4090.  Finally, that's the beauty of this card.  no compromise.  It performed BETTER as I cranked the settings so there was no performance cost for the highest settings. It's heavenly.  As for resolution, doubling the amount you can fit on screen in a flight simulator isn't negligible.  I could never go back to 2K at this point.

The difference may be negligible in P3D but a 911 Turbo will always be faster than a 911.  A 4090 will always be faster than a 4070/4080 other than at 1080P where a 4070/4080 should keep up.  The card itself is ~35% faster in every benchmark than a 4080 and some 60% faster than a 3090ti which is what the 4070ti benchmarks at... So yes, you will spend less and you will get less 🙂  

Quote

When fps are not CPU bottlenecked at all, such as during GPU benchmarks, the 4090 is around 75% faster than the 3090 and 60% faster than the 3090-Ti, these figures are approximate upper bounds for in-game fps improvement

  So we can't argue your system will be cheaper nor that my 4090 will be faster at higher resolutions.  Glad we agree 🙂 

Edited February 12, 20233 yr by psolk

2 hours ago, psolk said:

So yes, you will spend less and you will get less

I'm not disagreeing with you.  I never said the 4090 wouldn't give better performance than a lower end card.  My opinion is that the extra performance you'll get won't be worth the $600 more that you'll spend.  Moreover, you haven't yet found a comparison in performance gain going from a 3080/3090 to a 4070/4080.  I'll bet the 4090 would be better, yes, but how much better?  Likely not enough for me personally to justify the extra cost.  I'm pretty happy with an i7-9700 cpu and 2070 super video card, so I can only imagine the gain I'll get going to an i7-13700 and 4070.

We do not agree where display resolution is concerned, simple as that.  My eyes would not discern the difference if I used 4K instead of 2K with the same size display.

I've seen these types of discussions before and they never end.  Folks that spend a large sum of money on their rigs have a great desire to justify their expense and don't want to hear that someone who spends $1000 less than they did get almost the same performance out of their flightsim.  Note that I said "almost".  It's the degree of gain that matters, and what I would get by spending another $1000 just isn't worth it to me.

Like I said, what matters is that you're happy. 

Dave

 

36 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I'm not disagreeing with you.  I never said the 4090 wouldn't give better performance than a lower end card.  My opinion is that the extra performance you'll get won't be worth the $600 more that you'll spend.  Moreover, you haven't yet found a comparison in performance gain going from a 3080/3090 to a 4070/4080.  I'll bet the 4090 would be better, yes, but how much better?  Likely not enough for me personally to justify the extra cost.  I'm pretty happy with an i7-9700 cpu and 2070 super video card, so I can only imagine the gain I'll get going to an i7-13700 and 4070.

We do not agree where display resolution is concerned, simple as that.  My eyes would not discern the difference if I used 4K instead of 2K with the same size display.

I've seen these types of discussions before and they never end.  Folks that spend a large sum of money on their rigs have a great desire to justify their expense and don't want to hear that someone who spends $1000 less than they did get almost the same performance out of their flightsim.  Note that I said "almost".  It's the degree of gain that matters, and what I would get by spending another $1000 just isn't worth it to me.

Like I said, what matters is that you're happy. 

Dave

 

Should be an amazing jump to a 13700 and a 4070.

This is not about resolution quality Dave, I keep saying that, it is about having more real estate with the same size monitor and fitting more on screen.  Will you notice a difference in quality, maybe not, will you notice that you can see significantly more on your screen without having to pan, yes, you should. 

No one is feeling the need to justify anything.   I doubt your 13700K and 4070 is $1000 cheaper than my 12700K and 4090 but again, the only one who seems concerned with what people are spending is you 🙂   This thread was started to talk about my 12700K and 3080 experience with some tweaked settings actually... Nothing to do with a new system but you seem to be very compelled to tell me why my extra expenditure on a GPU isn't worth it 😉 

I'm happy and don't feel the need to justify my expense to anyone, not sure why you feel like that's what's happening, as I said, I use other sims and games that support DLSS.  I am seeing consistent 120FPS in other sims, capping out my 5K monitors refresh, in some cases I have doubled and tripled Frame Rates in other titles.  I am merely stating the facts of a 4090 to 4070 comparison, nothing else.  a 4090 is 75% faster than a 3090 and 60% faster than  a 3090ti, without a CPU bottleneck.  The 4070 is about the same speed as the 3080, the 4080 is about the same speed as a 3090.  So there is no point really upgrading from a 3070/3080 to a 4070/4080 you may as well get a 3090ti as prices drop unless you use other games that support DLSS. Going from a 3080-4080 is like going from a 3080-3090...  

 It's really fairly straight-forward and there are lots of comparisons out there, just not with P3D as a benchmark.  

Hope you are happy with your new system!  

Edited February 12, 20233 yr by psolk

1 hour ago, psolk said:

This is not about resolution quality Dave, I keep saying that, it is about having more real estate with the same size monitor and fitting more on screen.

A higher display resolution does not translate into a wider field of view in the sim.  I've experimented with this and it doesn't change anything.  Now if you're talking about fitting more separate windows onto the screen then, yes, because those windows are now smaller.

You also tout the fact that you're getting 60fps in the sim and 120 fps in other games.  There is no difference in quality between 30-35 fps and 60fs in the sim.  As long as the fps are stable, your eyes will not be able to tell the difference.  The higher fps can help with ghosting, but I've never sen that in the sim.

Again, it's all about what's important to you personally.  If you feel that you're getting much better quality and performance by spending a lot more money then that's fine.  I think that I can spend a lot less than you and get nearly the same performance and quality.  It's not a contest, just a comparison.

Dave

Where autogen and scenery density settings are concerned in P3Dv4, I do not compromise. I only have an i5 7600k/32GB DDR4-3600/6GB GTX980Ti powered system, but those two are at the Extremely Dense setting, and nothing will persuade me to lower them. The simple fact of the matter is that autogen buildings look rubbish at anything less than 100%. The sense of realism is shattered as soon as gaps start to appear.

I am talking about autogen on photoscenery here. Autogen buildings look rubbish at any settings with generic scenery

Edited February 12, 20233 yr by Christopher Low

37 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

A higher display resolution does not translate into a wider field of view in the sim.  I've experimented with this and it doesn't change anything.  Now if you're talking about fitting more separate windows onto the screen then, yes, because those windows are now smaller.

You also tout the fact that you're getting 60fps in the sim and 120 fps in other games.  There is no difference in quality between 30-35 fps and 60fs in the sim.  As long as the fps are stable, your eyes will not be able to tell the difference.  The higher fps can help with ghosting, but I've never sen that in the sim.

Again, it's all about what's important to you personally.  If you feel that you're getting much better quality and performance by spending a lot more money then that's fine.  I think that I can spend a lot less than you and get nearly the same performance and quality.  It's not a contest, just a comparison.

Dave

Yes Dave, I am happy spending $600 more on a GPU.  Thank you!  Glad you will spend less and get nearly the same performance and quality.  Not sure what else to say honestly.  You seem intent on telling me how I've wasted my money and you can do almost as much for less.  I don't seem to care 🙂  

Not debating 30FPS vs 60. Running FPS=refreshrate is always smoother than 1/2 especially with TrackIR.   Going to a 4070 should be the same as my 3080 and, I was getting 60 almost everywhere with my 3080 Dave.  Again, this thread was about being pleased with the performance of my old system with the 3080, not about upgrading to a 4090.  So yes, you should have great performance with a 4070 which is essentially a 3080 equivalent that now support DLSS.   The 4090 wasn't purchased for P3D it was purchased for sims that take advantage of DLSS but it's allowed me to crank a few settings and increase AA while increasing performance so I'm happy of the side effects of purchasing this for other sims.    

Not sure how this thread became so predominantly about whether or not my 4090 was worth my money and apparently being told it is not LOL.    It was originally about being happy with my 12700 and 3080 due to changed AM settings LOL... 

Edited February 12, 20233 yr by psolk

@Bob Scott just a note of thanks for the correct AM settings.  MUCH better now and I don't see those FPS variations anymore, seems to have locked performance/FPS to the 60Hz refresh rate I have my monitor locked to outside of my home airport of KEWR of course but even there my "low" FPS is now 40 which is where my G-Sync range begins on my monitor so it was enough to get me to where I needed to be for perfect fluidity on my setup so thank you!!!  Core distribution looks great now, no more peaking at 100%.  

About to do a nice 10 hour flight from KEWR-LLBG so I can admire 5000 miles of P3D in all it's splendor 🙂 

Edited February 14, 20233 yr by psolk