TechguyMaxC

Have you downloaded Radeon Pro? http://www.radeonpro.info

I've seen that data before, very informative. If you'll note though, I didn't say SLI wasn't helpful, what I said was that it's not *always* helpful, and your data demonstrates this. Either your idea of "max details" is different from everyone else's, or you're not as sensitive to dips under 60 fps. All the reviews show the Titan X is just barely enough for 60 fps @ 4k with max details in most games. And you sure as heck don't have 60 in P3D, unless you don't run add-ons or turn down a LOT of settings or both.

I "only" run 4k, so one card is plenty. I specifically waited for the Titan X before upgrading my graphics because it was either that or SLI 1080 and thankfully Titan X is just fast enough for 4k single card. SLI doesn't work in a number of games and it doesn't always help in flight sim either, too many CPU-bound scenarios.

Thanks for sharing your results, though I must point out this is the Titan X thread and the card you have is not a Titan X.

Hey, Jerry isn't annoying :mad: The other guy though... Ok, Barnacules is a little annoying, but he's just playing the "jolly fat nerd" stereotype due to body image issues. If you watch the guy's Youtube channel he's been open about this in the past, he actually is a really smart, very nice person who does make generally interesting and entertaining content.

I agree with those saying this is overkill for ESP-based flight sims (P3D, FSX/SE). That's why my FS rig only has a 1070 in it. My gaming machine gets the Titan X Waterblocks aren't out yet so I just have it on the stock air cooler for now, but it's a perfect match for a 4k screen and I don't have to mess with SLI. Happy days!

Frame Buffer is the term you are looking for, however it is in modern times used interchangeably with VRAM.

Way higher than you'll ever get on air cooling, especially on 14nm. 1.35-1.4 is as high as I would go on air for Skylake, and I wouldn't go that high with previous chips.

If your temps aren't too high and your OC isn't stable then you need, and should use, more VCore (in 99% of cases). Unless you're not comfortable doing so.

There's no meaningful performance difference between these cards except: 1) with very high settings when local frame buffer is overflowed on the 6GB 980 Ti where it would not be on the 1070 2) when running VR I say this having owned both cards and performing extensive performance analysis on the two.

FPS increase values are nice, but without knowing baseline frame rate it isn't informative to an outside party. If your 1080p numbers represent a 30% increase and your 3440x1440 numbers represent a 50% increase, that's nice to know. Especially if it means the higher resolution is now playable when it wasn't before.

No... If you want to talk about workloads other than flight sim, fine, there's little difference between Haswell and Skylake. But since THIS IS A FLIGHT SIM FORUM, let's talk about performance in say... Flight Sim? Read this page of the FSX Mark thread: http://www.avsim.com/topic/329116-fsxmark11/page-50 Skylake is *significantly* faster than Haswell, mostly due to its much improved memory bandwidth (thanks to DDR4) which FSX/P3D absolutely love. FSX/P3D are far more CPU-limited than X-Plane. Unless youi're running extremely high graphics settings in these sims (like SSAA + high resolution) you're unlikely to see any real performance difference in these sims upgrading beyond 980 Ti level performance at this point in time. Perhaps P3D 4.0 or Dovetail FS will change this.

That's marketing speak for "we've done the market research and there's no demand for such a product, but if by some miracle thousands of people contact us and demand we make this product, we'll consider it."

Those of you wondering if your current card is "enough" (i.e. has enough VRAM for a given resolution or is just plain fast enough) can use a tool such as EVGA's Precision X to monitor GPU usage and VRAM usage. See this guide from Anandtech to learn how to use it. The guide is a couple years old now so the interface is a little different, but the basics are all there. What you're looking for are GPU usage values close to 100% (if your GPU is close to this value it means you're GPU-bound) and VRAM usage levels approaching the amount of VRAM your card has. Example: if you have a 2GB card, you're looking for VRAM usage close to 2048 (as VRAM is measured by Precision X in MB rather than GB). If you see VRAM usage staying below this number you've got enough, but if it hits this number you probably need more. If you're thinking of upgrading your video card and monitor at the same time (say you want to move from 1080p to 4k) and you want to know whether or not a video card upgrade is necessary, determining GPU and VRAM usage will help you figure out if you need a new card or not.

It's hard for me to answer that because I'm a very special case. Prior to this card I owned a 980 Ti which was volt-modded and overclocked on water so it was an extremely good performer. The 1070 without its power limits increased via modded VBIOS is just a little bit slower so for me this is technically a downgrade, but only by a few percent. I hope that someone cracks the Pascal VBIOS by the time I water cool this one so I can get a better overclock and then it would actually be even or slightly ahead, and with significantly less power consumption and more VRAM so that's worth it in my book. I'm guessing you're not in the same situation though so from that perspective it's a fantastic card, even with the stock cooler. A bit overpriced right now though given the stock levels @ various retailers. I bought my card early last week @ Micro Center and I needed to stop in yesterday and just happened to see someone picking up the same card. Last week I bought it for $469 and it was overpriced then. Looks like they're scalping even worse now because it's up to $489. Newegg has it at $459 (out of stock) which according to the only place on the net I've been able to locate an allegged MSRP for this card is actually not overpriced https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1070_Gaming_X/ However, I remember this card being priced as low as $429 at one point for pre-order so it's pretty obvious they've been adjusting prices upwards during this high demand/low availability period. On that note, I'm very disappointed by both availability and pricing of cards for this launch, it's the worst I've ever seen and I've been buying video cards since the 90s (hence why I often say video card instead of the more current "graphics card"). We really need AMD to step up and release some competitive offerings at the high end of the market or this trend will become the standard from now on, I'm afraid. Enough of a rant from me, here's a summary in easy to read pro/con format. Pros: -fast (previous generation high-end performance for a good amount less money) -low power consumption -great stock cooling solution Cons: -low availability/overpriced compared to MSRP -doesn't overclock very well since the stock boost is already very high

Sounds like a great setup, though I'm doubtful even SLI 1080s will be enough for 3x4k... Also, wow for the price of that binned & delidded 6700k. $289 at Micro Center and delidding is free I realize you're paying for the pre-testing and binning service but nearly 3x retail is a bit much for me. It's a great service, wish I'd thought of it first since I was one of the first to bother with delidding in the modern era when Ivy Bridge came out. Anyway, that's a beastly setup, I hope it works out for you! Oh yeah, one more thing - closed loop coolers like the H110i you've chosen will almost certainly not offer enough heat dissipation capacity to support a 6700k @ 4.9GHz, even delidded. You should look into "real" water cooling. It gets expensive, but you obviously have the money I'm in the middle of water cooling my 5820k/GTX 1070 build as we speak, expect to have it done in the next couple days and should finally be able to tame the overheating issues I have with this chip @ 4.5GHz.

Quote from post 49: I don't think you're reading that correctly.

The reference design for the 750 Ti did not feature a 6-pin because the board was designed properly not to pull more power than the PCI-e slot could safely provide, unlike the RX 480. However, overclocked cards from AIB partners could and did feature 6-pin power connectors which were able to provide the additional power needed. You'll notice the Gigabyte card featured in that review does indeed have a 6-pin connector. Also, the power consumption page of the THG review doesn't mention which of the 3 cards they had on hand was used for testing. In fact, on the very next page featuring GPGPU testing they show a maximum power draw of only 68W so I question whether or not they truly showed results for a reference card on the previous page. Transient spikes above 75W aren't going to kill a PCI-e slot, as you can see from that THG review the average power draw still remains below 75W. It is sustained power draw above 75W that can kill a PCI-e slot. Anyway, it's all a moot point because 750 Ti cards were not cited for killing motherboards, RX 480s have already been shown to do so. https://community.amd.com/thread/202410 Read the following for more information on why RX 480's power draw is an issue: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Power-Consumption-Concerns-Radeon-RX-480 Pay particular attention to the video featured at that link, it actually contains additional information that is not in the written article.

I can't find a single reference to this anywhere on the internet. Chances are you're confusing total board power draw and power draw from the PCI-e slot exclusively, which is the issue at hand. The bottom line is that at this point in time, several samples of RX 480 in the wild have been shown to draw potentially dangerous amounts of power via the PCI-e slot, outside of the standardized maximum allowable power draw (75W = 12V * 6.25A).

This is one option. At this point in time, there are no 3rd party "non-reference" design RX 480s available, so indeed, one must still wait in order to pursue this option and should not buy currently.

AMD's new budget $200-$240 graphics card (essentially equivalent in performance to the Geforce GTX 970) has some serious design flaws which could kill your motherboard. There are lots of tech sites doing analysis of this issue and lots of discussion forums with in-depth discussions. I feel like this discussion is the best I've come across thus far, with an explanation in the first post. http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=118144 Note: it is possible that this issue will be corrected by AMD at some point either through manufacturing changes or via software updates but no solution has been identified at this point in time.

Non-reference cards aren't overclocking any better than FE cards at this point in time, and the only way they ever will is if someone cracks the Pascal VBIOS and is able to workaround the power limits Nvidia has set. I have a 1070 Gaming X from MSI, a full-custom card and it can only hit 2050MHz on the core, same as all the FE 1070 reviews. The same situation is true with 1080s.

Devil's Canyon (4790k & 4690k CPUs) are almost all good to 4.8GHz+ with reasonable voltage (i.e. less than 1.35V) provided adequate cooling to keep temps in check. My 4790k does 4.8GHz with 1.34V and 5.0GHz with just over 1.4V. I use custom water cooling and have de-lidded my chip to achieve these results. I've recently chosen 4.8GHz for long-term stability as I've already owned the CPU for over a year now and had been running at 5.0GHz the whole time. I don't tend to keep CPUs a long time so I usually run them full-out but I may not upgrade the system in which I have the 4790k for awhile, given its use. Bottom line: if you have the cooling and you don't need dangerous voltage, run it as high as you can within these parameters. If 4.7 is the limit for your chip, be happy with that. If you want to know what the limits are, keep pushing the multiplier and stress testing until you find instability, then increase the voltage until it is no longer unstable. If the voltage and/or temperatures are outside of your comfort zone, back down the clock speed and voltage until you are where you want to be. If you're only hitting 50C during a stress test, you're nowhere near the thermal limits of your chip, BTW (105C is the throttle point for Haswell/Haswell-E).

Have you considered keeping both sims and using FSX when you feel like flying PMDG aircraft? That's what I do.

Then, 1) either you haven't tested enough to see the difference or 2) your graphics settings aren't high enough that you need more GPU performance Also, moving your sliders to the right produces better graphics, not more performance. You could go the opposite direction if more performance is your desire.