How to know which subsystem upgrade? Cpu or Gpu, the big question...

[Auza]

Hi guys, today I bring you an interesting thread, concerning to Fsx/PREPAR3D, a lot of people claims that they are only Cpu intensive aplications, but what people forgot is that Gpu can make a huge difference in Fps, here are the instructions you need to follow, so you will avoid the risk of loosing your money when upgrading a subsystem:

 

1-Download Msi afterburner and go to monitoring settings, you will only need to check the main cpu core usage(this is which give you the FPS in an 3d aplication).

2-Get sure that when you run FSX/PREPAR3D every other program is closed(ITUNES/TEAM VIEWER), people think that kind of programs dont affect FPS, but what they dont realize is that oppening other applications will cause CPU limit its power, so you will only have running FSX and MSI AFTERBURNER, turn off even your antivirus sofware if you can and run the simulator in full screen mode.

 

Now you only have to perform a basic test, go to the heaviest scenery you have, for example KJFK, and check the CPU usage, if it is something like 90-95%(in the main core) or above, you are CPU limited, then you will have minimal or 0 gains upgrading your GPU, but lot of gains if you upgrade/overclock your CPU.

 

If your Cpu main core usage is something like under 90 but above 70%, then you will spot a moderate boost in your FPS if you upgrade your GPU or you CPU.

 

Now, finally, if you spot your CPU main core usage under 70%, then you are Texture fill rate limited, in other words GPU limited, so you will spot a lot of change in your FPS if you upgrade your Gpu, and minimal to 0 gains if you upgrade you CPU, you can check this by yourself by other type of test, turn down resolution/ check off antialiasing, use lower texture resolution/use lower texture filtering and you will notice a considerably boost in your frame rate.

 

Now, and obvious thing, dont expect considerably gains by switching from gtx580 to gtx 680, if you will change, make a change that you know will keep you ready for future, for example from a gtx 580 to a gtx 980, from Ivy bridge CPU to skylake, remember: avoid AMD CPUS as they were clearley outperformed by Intel at cpu intensive apllication as simulators, maybe at typical gaming Amd doesnt not perform so bad, because common games are normally limited by the Texture fill rate, so the GPU becomes a lot more important, but for fsx/´PREPAR3D/X-plane 10, choose Intel.

[PhantomTweak]

As a general rule, FSX is very heavily CPU dependant. If you're going to improve one of the two, then CPU is the way to go...

Pat☺

[Auza]

As a general rule, FSX is very heavily CPU dependant. If you're going to improve one of the two, then CPU is the way to go...

Pat☺

 

Hi Phantom, Not every time the Cpu is the problem, I have seen people with Haswell clocked to 4,8 but with a gt 930, it will not perform the same than a haswell clocked to 4,8 with a gtx 980.

[MrUnSavory]

Yes, GPU does help some but you have to remember this is 10 year old code. It is heavily CPU dependent. If I were to make a guess I would say 75% for the CPU and 25% for the GPU. Now P3D uses a little more of the GPU as they have tessellation which off loads some work to the GPU to free up the CPU but you can only do so much of that with 10 year old code. When building systems I always get the best CPU I can afford and a medium graphics card.

[Auza]

Yes, GPU does help some but you have to remember this is 10 year old code. It is heavily CPU dependent. If I were to make a guess I would say 75% for the CPU and 25% for the GPU. Now P3D uses a little more of the GPU as they have tessellation which off loads some work to the GPU to free up the CPU but you can only do so much of that with 10 year old code. When building systems I always get the best CPU I can afford and a medium graphics card.

 

Yeah dude, back in 2006, the power of a gpu was nothing compared to what an cpu could achieve, so the core of games were focused on Cpu, but if you make tests, you will notice that shadows, autogen, bloom and traffic are not only heavy on your CPU, those effects impacts GPU too, so if you have a powerful CPU and want high settings and complex addons, at least a x70 nvidia card is needed to match the processor, now with prepar3d v2.5 and 3, SLI can be used and it can really improve your performance.

[MrUnSavory]

True, but the majority of the work is still done by the CPU. Because of the age of the code there is only so much they can offload. Until we get a true 64bit flight sim the CPU will always be the focus. I am not saying a good GPU can't help. I just think the performance gains you get when compared to price of some of these video cards it just isn't worth it. I still run an i7 3930 6 core 3.2Ghz overclocked to 4.2 with only a GTX760 card. I run FS9, FSX and P3DV3 and it runs very nicely fairly cranked up int he settings. :)

[Egsjr1956]

I spent almost two hours last night tweaking Ultimate terrain lights. With this I gained extra FPS. Everything plays a factor for good performance. You not only need to know your machine, but also the software to make sure everything is compatible. Example, I will not install anything into P3d if it is not compatible. Read the system requirements. These are the minimums. Fsx: Steam:

 

System Requirements

MINIMUM:

OS: Windows® XP Service Pack 2 or later

Processor: 2.0 Ghz or higher (single core)

Memory: 2 GB RAM

Graphics: DirectX®9 compliant video card or greater, 256 MB video RAM or higher, Shader Model 1.1 or higher (Laptop versions of these chipsets may work but are not supported. Updates to your video and sound card drivers may be required)

DirectX: Version 9.0c

Network: Broadband Internet connection

Storage: 30 GB available space

Additional Notes: Broadband internet connection required for multiplayer features

 

Now if you start adding to this, the numbers go up. I agree that the CPU is a strong factor for FSX, but you really have to consider everything you are trying to run and what you are running it with.

[Auza]

I spent almost two hours last night tweaking Ultimate terrain lights. With this I gained extra FPS. Everything plays a factor for good performance. You not only need to know your machine, but also the software to make sure everything is compatible. Example, I will not install anything into P3d if it is not compatible. Read the system requirements. These are the minimums. Fsx: Steam:

 

System Requirements

MINIMUM:

OS: Windows® XP Service Pack 2 or later

Processor: 2.0 Ghz or higher (single core)

Memory: 2 GB RAM

Graphics: DirectX®9 compliant video card or greater, 256 MB video RAM or higher, Shader Model 1.1 or higher (Laptop versions of these chipsets may work but are not supported. Updates to your video and sound card drivers may be required)

DirectX: Version 9.0c

Network: Broadband Internet connection

Storage: 30 GB available space

Additional Notes: Broadband internet connection required for multiplayer features

 

Now if you start adding to this, the numbers go up. I agree that the CPU is a strong factor for FSX, but you really have to consider everything you are trying to run and what you are running it with.

 

Thats right, every component of the PC matter, not only for fps, stability is important too, and the more software you add, the better the PC need to be.

[Rupert]

Thats right, every component of the PC matter, not only for fps, stability is important too, and the more software you add, the better the PC need to be.

 

+1.

 

Concerning software which is the real controller of performance on an already good or great machine. I suggest before you plunk down a ton of cash on software that you prioritize your software wants. PMDG and other fancy aircraft addon configurations consume a ton of processing capability. High quality addon scenery does the same thing.

 

Being happy with both super detailed planes and scenery isn't a viable option. At least if you want to get your sliders to the middle or upper ranges.

 

You should early on choose whether you prefer 1. super airplanes or 2. super scenery. If you're flying high in a fancy liner, don't waste your money on super scenery. And if you have super scenery your super liner won't perform as you had hoped.

 

Having flown RW long before such nice things such as GPS were even invented, I really enjoy good scenery. I'm used to stick and rudder flying. That's my thing. However if you really want a plane that you can program to takeoff, land, etc. with your arms crossed as most modern big planes now do RW, that's your thing.

 

Yin or Yang? Different strokes for different folks.

[Auza]

+1.

 

Concerning software which is the real controller of performance on an already good or great machine. I suggest before you plunk down a ton of cash on software that you prioritize your software wants. PMDG and other fancy aircraft addon configurations consume a ton of processing capability. High quality addon scenery does the same thing.

 

Being happy with both super detailed planes and scenery isn't a viable option. At least if you want to get your sliders to the middle or upper ranges.

 

You should early on choose whether you prefer 1. super airplanes or 2. super scenery. If you're flying high in a fancy liner, don't waste your money on super scenery. And if you have super scenery your super liner won't perform as you had hoped.

 

Having flown RW long before such nice things such as GPS were even invented, I really enjoy good scenery. I'm used to stick and rudder flying. That's my thing. However if you really want a plane that you can program to takeoff, land, etc. with your arms crossed as most modern big planes now do RW, that's your thing.

 

Yin or Yang? Different strokes for different folks.

 

Thats totally right, the user takes a huge role here, some people prefers pure eye candy no matter the performance, other people prefer only high fps, some people search for both(which is impossible mission), and they forget is a simulator, not a game, what really matters is well simulated systems and physics, not graphics...

[Rupert]

Thats totally right, the user takes a huge role here, some people prefers pure eye candy no matter the performance, other people prefer only high fps, some people search for both(which is impossible mission), and they forget is a simulator, not a game, what really matters is well simulated systems and physics, not graphics...

 

If you want real world physics practice, fly a tail dragger.

 

If you want steady screen views and predictable operation, don't spend your life chasing others' claims of FPS. I'm very satisfied at 30FPS max. Though my computer is capable of a lot more, my senses can't really detect more.

 

To each his/her own about priorities. I'm happy to let my box worry whether I'm flying correctly, not how I can program a sim flight. I dial in real world weather and fly in and out of as many challenging locations as I can find, that's what I call simming.