Jump to content

Will a GTX 970 help my FPS?


Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

Please see signature for my spec's...

 

I am running UK2000 at EGLL along with ORBX Base, Global, FTX Europe, REX 4 and ASN.

 

I am flying the PMDG 737.

 

I decided to do a circuit and see what FPS I am getting to see if I can get any more out of this.

 

I took off from EGLL, did a circuit to land on the same runway, getting up to 3000 ft.

 

My FPS was only 10-15 in VC with TrackIR4 - over 3 screens.

 

I ran Task manager and GPU-Z to monitor utilisation but looking at both of them I have some head room - see graphs below...

 

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f279/mdavenport555/EGLL.jpg.png

 

GPU went up to late 60% and you can see that not all CPU cores were being hit hard... I do have the correct affinity mask set...

 

Looking at this do you think a new GPU will help as could the 750ti be bottlenecking my system now?

 

I know you will say OC the CPU but I can't as its a Dell PC...

 

Looking forward to hearing what you think will help...

PC: i7-4790 QUAD Core HT 3.60Ghz, 16GB RAM, Corsair Supernova GS 650w PSU, Gigabyte GTX 970 Mini ITX, 128GB SSD (Win7 x64), 500GB Samsung 840 Evo SSD (FSX+Addons)

Monitor: 3 x 23" IPS NVidia Surround 5880x1024, 1 x 19" 16:9

Addons: Saitek Yoke, Pedals, Jetmax TQ, FDS CDU, FDS MX MCP, iVibe TFS3, Prosim:737

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there an easy way to find my bottleneck? Something is stopping my FPS being higher..

PC: i7-4790 QUAD Core HT 3.60Ghz, 16GB RAM, Corsair Supernova GS 650w PSU, Gigabyte GTX 970 Mini ITX, 128GB SSD (Win7 x64), 500GB Samsung 840 Evo SSD (FSX+Addons)

Monitor: 3 x 23" IPS NVidia Surround 5880x1024, 1 x 19" 16:9

Addons: Saitek Yoke, Pedals, Jetmax TQ, FDS CDU, FDS MX MCP, iVibe TFS3, Prosim:737

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fps depends only on cpu.

 

a new graphics card may improve graphics displayed slightly. It would not improve fps one bit.

 

The better picture could maybe mean you could set 1 of your graphics settings lower in fsx, and still get an acceptable picture. and that way you might get one fps more.

 

I suggest instead getting better cooling for that dell case, or a new case. It will mean your cpu no longer gets throttled to prevent it overheating.

 

(if it is 3.3 ghz, with a 3.7 turbo frequency, the 3.7 turbo is only achieved if the cpu stays cool. If it gets hot it runs at 3.3ghz, or even lower, 2.5ghz. To stop it from producing more heat.)

 

If a new case/extra casefan is no option, run it with the side of the case removed. (and the room's window open.)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the best sliders to work on then?

 

My FSX.CFG was done by a guy call Robert Thibodeau who ran a group on Facebook called FSX Professionals but unfortunately that group seems to have disappeared - not sure why..

PC: i7-4790 QUAD Core HT 3.60Ghz, 16GB RAM, Corsair Supernova GS 650w PSU, Gigabyte GTX 970 Mini ITX, 128GB SSD (Win7 x64), 500GB Samsung 840 Evo SSD (FSX+Addons)

Monitor: 3 x 23" IPS NVidia Surround 5880x1024, 1 x 19" 16:9

Addons: Saitek Yoke, Pedals, Jetmax TQ, FDS CDU, FDS MX MCP, iVibe TFS3, Prosim:737

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the cpu just does what fsx tells it to do, based on your settings. The result is then passed to the graphics card. Including the fps indication (number) you see at the top of the screen.

 

The graphics card puts it on the screen. If the graphics card can't keep up it just does not put all the images that come from the cpu on the screen.

It skips on every once in a while. Or it is not able to draw all the details quick enough if the memory is slow, and then it starts displaying the next frame before the details of the previous one were fully drawn. Remember, a frame is simply an image. like in a flip book. (that's a pre-runner of cartoons).

But if those things happen, it does not change the fps number you see.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a "fixed" fsx.cfg did anything good when I tried.

I get the best results with only a few edits:

 

[GRAPHICS]

HIGHMEMFIX=1

 

Set fsx to run on core 1-2-3 , not 0

[JOBSCHEDULER] ---new line top

AffinityMask=14 ---new line added

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just did a flight to lepa Palma. When I look at the gpu-z it's running mostly around 85% gpu load with the max being 99%.

 

Cup still looked steady with only a couple of cores running near 100%. I have to conclude cpu is not the bottleneck. Or am I way off?

 

Would this high gpu figure be a cause for concern. Surely things are pointing to this with those numbers quoted?

 

Mine fps is fixed at 31 fps and set in nvi to 1/2 refresh rate.

PC: i7-4790 QUAD Core HT 3.60Ghz, 16GB RAM, Corsair Supernova GS 650w PSU, Gigabyte GTX 970 Mini ITX, 128GB SSD (Win7 x64), 500GB Samsung 840 Evo SSD (FSX+Addons)

Monitor: 3 x 23" IPS NVidia Surround 5880x1024, 1 x 19" 16:9

Addons: Saitek Yoke, Pedals, Jetmax TQ, FDS CDU, FDS MX MCP, iVibe TFS3, Prosim:737

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you set your fps to is not the yardstick, it's the fps you are getting that counts.

 

you said in the opening post:

My FPS was only 10-15 in VC with TrackIR4 - over 3 screens

 

With a high usage of the gpu a new gpu may improve things. With so many screens a good gpu is of course required.

 

But it won't increase your framerate, that is determined by what the cpu can do.

 

Track ir running is a load on the cpu as well.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You get good fps from, in order of importance:

 

Correctly running and updated Windows. Run sfc /scannow every once in a while.

Correct settings in the Bios.

No virusses.

Use a paid AV.

Good cooling.

(I had 18cm intake fan, exhaust was psu. Temp of air coming out of that was a smoldering 50 degrees. fps was 12 at high detail airports. -- New case, now intake and exaust are 140mm fans, psu draws air from room directly.

Cpu temp down 15 Celsius, Videocard temp down 20 Celsius, Fps now 30 everywhere all the time (locked at 30 also, simply in fsx.) )

Less important::

Win and FSX on SSD. So data can be sent to CPU quickly.

Correct tweaks in fsx.cfg (The fewer the berrer!! As i said I only have those two.)

Don't use a "we will give you the best cfg ever" sites. It's a myth. It was usefull with a celeron, not anymore.

 

 

Not from a good graphics card. A good graphics card just gives a nicer looking display.

(I'm not saying that's a bad thing;) )

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok with this in mind then, if the drawing of AI planes is slow, or moving my head around using TrackIR is jerky then this is not due to the FPS but rather the GPU..

 

In which case, this is what I am suffering with is airport traffic appearing to jump across the screen, not smoothly moving. When in TrackIR4 turning my head can be jerky.

 

All of this gets worse when my FPS drops which is why I have been putting it down to FPS but I guess what you are saying the FPS could still be ok, but the GPU not able to display it quick enough.

 

If this seems to be the case then I would imagine a new GPU GTX 970 would certainly help out here??

 

Thanks for your advice so far...

PC: i7-4790 QUAD Core HT 3.60Ghz, 16GB RAM, Corsair Supernova GS 650w PSU, Gigabyte GTX 970 Mini ITX, 128GB SSD (Win7 x64), 500GB Samsung 840 Evo SSD (FSX+Addons)

Monitor: 3 x 23" IPS NVidia Surround 5880x1024, 1 x 19" 16:9

Addons: Saitek Yoke, Pedals, Jetmax TQ, FDS CDU, FDS MX MCP, iVibe TFS3, Prosim:737

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fps depends only on cpu. a new graphics card may improve graphics displayed slightly. It would not improve fps one bit.

 

This is incorrect.

 

All graphical-intensive programs can be limited by either the GPU or the CPU. The CPU has to do a lot of work to generate the instructions to send to the GPU. The GPU then has to execute those instructions, apply anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering and then turn it into the frame buffer to send to the display.

 

If either CPU or GPU can't keep up, frame rate is limited.

 

FSX and FS9 are primarily CPU-limited; the amount of work that needs to be done on the GPU is sufficiently small that most modern GPUs can safely keep up. But it depends - the work of the GPU is linearly proportional with the number of pixels that need to get manipulated - ie. screen size.

 

The original poster is running three 1920x1024 screens - that's a lot more pixels for that 750 to move around, and the 750 isn't a barn burner. (It's a really nice video card in that it doesn't require PCIe power or noisy cooling, but that's a different use case.)

 

My suggestion to mdavenport is to turn off all anti-aliasing and ansiotropic filtering in Nvidia Inspector and see if the frame rate increases. If it does, he's GPU limited.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is incorrect.

 

All graphical-intensive programs can be limited by either the GPU or the CPU. The CPU has to do a lot of work to generate the instructions to send to the GPU. The GPU then has to execute those instructions, apply anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering and then turn it into the frame buffer to send to the display.

 

If either CPU or GPU can't keep up, frame rate is limited.

 

My suggestion to mdavenport is to turn off all anti-aliasing and ansiotropic filtering in Nvidia Inspector and see if the frame rate increases. If it does, he's GPU limited.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

 

I agree! That test might help clear up all this back and forth CPU versus GPU conversation. However, in my experience no hardware change has been of value but installing a faster single core CPU and faster ram. Y.E.M.V.

 

I've used three 1920x1080 75 Hz refresh rate monitors with FSX for years. But my last two builds had CPUs witha native clock speed of over 4GHZ. Going over 4GHZ, native, in the CPU is where my performance and frame rates picked up. In fact one of these computers has a 7800 series NVIDIA GPU and the other a 580 series. No problems at all with either.

Being an old chopper guy I usually fly low and slow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That test might help clear up all this back and forth CPU versus GPU conversation. However, in my experience no hardware change has been of value but installing a faster single core CPU and faster ram. Y.E.M.V.

 

I agree - that's been the case with most of my upgrades. The one exception I ran into was when I upgraded a fair bit of hardware but the monitor arrived a day earlier - I figured I'd plug it in and enjoy the larger screen if nothing else. My frame rates dropped significantly in the clouds, with no other changes having been made.

 

I suspect that I had enough GPU headroom in the past, but once I doubled the number of pixels the GPU had to tweak, it started to be my limit. I'd be curious to see how the 750 compares to your 7800 - I'd also be interested in what AA settings are being used. Anti-aliasing is usually what's expensive for GPUs.

 

I like the idea of doing tests, because too many folks IMO make expensive purchases without seeing what tests they can do prior to validate their hypothesis. Also, too many folks change several variables at the same time before doing tests and then when things change, they aren't sure what change caused the observed result. (Or worse, they arbitrarily pick one, which may not be the right one!) :)

 

Hopefully mdavenport can turn down the AA all the way and suffer the jaggies for a flight and see if it makes a difference. I suspect another option (if possible) is to disconnect a display which should also reduce the GPU load.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is incorrect.

 

My suggestion to mdavenport is to turn off all anti-aliasing and ansiotropic filtering in Nvidia Inspector and see if the frame rate increases. If it does, he's GPU limited.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

 

Hi Luke,

 

Happy to try this and feedback once I have had time to do it (away from home for a few days now) so its likely to be next weekend before I can try.

 

Just so I get the test right, can you share the exact NVI settings I need to turn off/disable?

PC: i7-4790 QUAD Core HT 3.60Ghz, 16GB RAM, Corsair Supernova GS 650w PSU, Gigabyte GTX 970 Mini ITX, 128GB SSD (Win7 x64), 500GB Samsung 840 Evo SSD (FSX+Addons)

Monitor: 3 x 23" IPS NVidia Surround 5880x1024, 1 x 19" 16:9

Addons: Saitek Yoke, Pedals, Jetmax TQ, FDS CDU, FDS MX MCP, iVibe TFS3, Prosim:737

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

I've still to do the test that Luke asked me to which I should be able to do this weekend.

 

In the meantime I have been reading on CPUs. My i7 is a 4790 base speed 3.6. This is installed in a dell t1700. I understand that turbo boost can take this to 4.00ghz but I don't know if my pc is doing this or not. Do you know how to check?

 

Also can I install a 4790k running at 4.00? I assume I can't overclock it as its a sell but I could benefit from a constant 4.00ghz for about £220. Is it worth it? Shame I can't overclock!!

PC: i7-4790 QUAD Core HT 3.60Ghz, 16GB RAM, Corsair Supernova GS 650w PSU, Gigabyte GTX 970 Mini ITX, 128GB SSD (Win7 x64), 500GB Samsung 840 Evo SSD (FSX+Addons)

Monitor: 3 x 23" IPS NVidia Surround 5880x1024, 1 x 19" 16:9

Addons: Saitek Yoke, Pedals, Jetmax TQ, FDS CDU, FDS MX MCP, iVibe TFS3, Prosim:737

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To luke.

Yes, the gpu does the antialiassing.

But the cpu needs to supply the data at the required speed.

It is not likely the gpu is not capable of keeping up. Fsx is not a game that leans heavily on the gpu. This is somnething that differs from game to game.

If the cpu can't supply the data any faster, getting a faster gpu is not going to do much.

 

 

Then, testing by reducing AA. Not a good test.

Reducing AA will always increase fps. Simply because the gpu has less to do, less data needs to be supplied by the cpu, and the cpu is free to run the game faster.

The cpu is what drives the framerate.

(besides, once you have the new gpu you will drive AA up again...)

 

 

Matk. Dell=probably no overclock.

Apart from the ability to overclock, there is no difference between those cpu's. their base frequency/turbo frequency is the same.

 

To see the frequency the cpu is doing, run HWMonitor. (a free program). RealTemp is also nice to have (also free).

 

 

For more info on AA and gpu/cpu, better then I can put it, Google: Antialiassing done by gpu or cpu.

this is a nice one:

https://forums.epicgames.com/archive/index.php/t-584803.html

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

to your original post. EGLL, with those addons, at only 3000 ft, and still 15 fps, and 3 screens. No need to complain there. I think you are getting greedy.;)

To get 20 or more fps there, you need to be running at well over 4.0 ghz, using liquid cooling, on a much better mainboard then you are using now, with a much better case, psu, the whole lot. Then a new graphics card, that can run that large resolution at slightly lower temps makes sense.

Not now.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the gpu does the antialiassing.

 

Correct.

 

It is not likely the gpu is not capable of keeping up.

 

Look at post #8 again. mdavenport has already said that the GPU is going between 85% and 99% utilization. It's a proven fact that the GPU is being topped out.

 

If the cpu can't supply the data any faster, getting a faster gpu is not going to do much.

 

What is this "data" that the CPU needs to provide? Be specific.

 

The CPU is sending a bunch of draw instructions and polygon data to the GPU. The GPU needs to turn that into a frame buffer, and does a lot of intermediate processing in between. If you go from 2x to 4x anti-aliasing, in most cases that's all on the GPU; the instructions from the driver to the GPU are the same. If there's a specific difference in what the CPU needs to send, I'd be interested in hearing it.

 

Reducing AA will always increase fps. Simply because the gpu has less to do, less data needs to be supplied by the cpu, and the cpu is free to run the game faster.

 

You miss the point. It's faster not because the CPU needs to send less data, it's because the CPU doesn't need to wait for the GPU!

 

this is a nice one:

 

Posts by random people on the internet aren't a good authority. Nor am I - this is why I keep suggesting to mdavenport that he runs experiments to see what is going on. If you have an experiment, it's valuable to share it and let's see.

 

you need to be running at well over 4.0 ghz, using liquid cooling, on a much better mainboard then you are using now, with a much better case, psu, the whole lot

 

Let's stop here. The motherboard, cooling mechanism, PSU and (especially) the case have little to no effect. Either you're running cool enough that the CPU doesn't throttle, or you're not. The CPU is no faster at 65C than it is at 80C. Either the PSU provides enough power or not. You don't get any faster if you need 250W and you have a 100W PSU, than if you had a 500W PSU.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

il88pp, are you saying then that s 4.00ghz 4790k is actually a base speed the same as my non-k which is 3.6ghz? If so how can they advertise it as a 4.00ghz.

 

My understanding is that it's base is 4.00 and turbo boost or OCing will take it to 4.4ghz. Is this not the case?

PC: i7-4790 QUAD Core HT 3.60Ghz, 16GB RAM, Corsair Supernova GS 650w PSU, Gigabyte GTX 970 Mini ITX, 128GB SSD (Win7 x64), 500GB Samsung 840 Evo SSD (FSX+Addons)

Monitor: 3 x 23" IPS NVidia Surround 5880x1024, 1 x 19" 16:9

Addons: Saitek Yoke, Pedals, Jetmax TQ, FDS CDU, FDS MX MCP, iVibe TFS3, Prosim:737

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa, whoa, whoa - stop the clock ;)

I'm going a little off-topic here, but just for a moment...

 

I don't really want to pour any gas on this but, while I completely agree that at a given clockspeed, decreasing the temp will not, in and of itself, raise the performance of a CPU. And there is a point of negatively impacting performance below a certain temp.

 

But, the whole idea of overclocking, where you try to increase the CPU clockspeed above "stock," can be limited by temperature.

A lower temperature can mean, when overclocking, achieving an overall higher CPU clockspeed, thereby increasing performance.

 

For example:

 

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/anton-shilov/intel-core-i7-4790k-devils-canyon-overclocked-to-6ghz-with-all-cores-active/

 

So, if you're overclocking to achieve higher performance, the CPU cooling mechanism can make a difference.

Although I really don't see most of us going to these extremes...

 

E-Buzz :pilot:

i5 4690k @ 4.7gHz (Water-cooled), 8GB ram, GTX 960 2GB, 850 EVO 1 TB SSD, 50" LED TV + 2x27" monitors, Thrustmaster HOTAS, Win 8.1 Pro, P3DV4, TrackIR, EZDOK, a bunch of Orbx stuff, a chair, a hacked-up desk, and a cold drink.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

I've still to do the test that Luke asked me to which I should be able to do this weekend.

 

In the meantime I have been reading on CPUs. My i7 is a 4790 base speed 3.6. This is installed in a dell t1700. I understand that turbo boost can take this to 4.00ghz but I don't know if my pc is doing this or not. Do you know how to check?

 

Also can I install a 4790k running at 4.00? I assume I can't overclock it as its a sell but I could benefit from a constant 4.00ghz for about £220. Is it worth it? Shame I can't overclock!!

 

Most any CPU or MB, etc diagnostics can tell you the clock it's running. Even the simple

CPU-Z.. I use the MSI command center software to check and adjust that most of the

time. "MSI MB". I'm also running a 4790, and did a lot of testing using the standard

turbo to 4.0 ghz, and manual, which for my MB, lets me use a max of 3.8 ghz constant

for all four cores.

On the CPU bench tests, the normal turbo to 4 ghz won by a slight amount.

But.. For FSX, as best I could tell, running all four cores at a constant 3.8 ghz was

slightly better than normal turbo to 4 ghz.

So... that's the way I've been running mine for the last few months. All cores at

a constant 3.8 ghz. I wish it would let it run all four at 4 ghz.. It would be perfectly

viable as long as you kept it cool. But noooooooooooo!!! :mad: Won't let me with

my MB.

 

I've also pondered the possibility of going to a 4790k in the future as my z97 MB etc

is capable. But it's not worth the high cost unless I could sell the 4790 for a good

price.. You might see maybe 10% increase with a hopped up 4790.. Not worth the

$$$ to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mbjhou,to set all 4 cores to 3.8 I assume u have a Z motherboard? If not is there a way to set this on a OEM board?

PC: i7-4790 QUAD Core HT 3.60Ghz, 16GB RAM, Corsair Supernova GS 650w PSU, Gigabyte GTX 970 Mini ITX, 128GB SSD (Win7 x64), 500GB Samsung 840 Evo SSD (FSX+Addons)

Monitor: 3 x 23" IPS NVidia Surround 5880x1024, 1 x 19" 16:9

Addons: Saitek Yoke, Pedals, Jetmax TQ, FDS CDU, FDS MX MCP, iVibe TFS3, Prosim:737

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...