What Was The GTX 1050Ti of P3D v2 and v3

[caleb1]

My question is, since I have only been using Prepar3D since December 2016, what GPU gave P3D v2 and v3 the same performance as a GTX 1050Ti in v4?

 

If this is too hard of a question to answer that's OK, I'm just asking in case it can be answered.

 

Thanks in advance.

[paulb]

Hi Caleb,

 

Well, I guess the first thing to remember is that P3Dv2 and 3 are 32 bit. P3Dv4 is 64 bit. A 32 bit programme is only able to use 4GB of memory. A 64 bit programme is unrestricted in terms of the memory that it can use.

 

What that means is that programmes such as FSX and P3Dv2 and 3 have not been able to take advantage of the advances in graphics cards in the way that P3Dv4 now can.

 

So, for FSX, P3D2/3 the CPU has tended to be the most important factor. Therefore with a fast CPU and decent memory, you can get good performance from FSX, P3D2/3 with a relatively modest graphics card.

 

For P3Dv4, which will use a modern card then the more powerful (speed and memory) the card then the better. Of course a fast CPU is equally important.

 

IMO, it is impossible to draw an exact comparison, because for example high settings are higher in P3Dv4 than in FSX and P3D 2/3. LOD radius is a particular area where they differ.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[Nick Cooper]

The card compares in performance to a GTX 570 or 580.

 

The 4 GB limit on VAS in 32 bit software has nothing to do with the use of RAM on a graphics card.

 

Equally, the amount of RAM on a graphics card has nothing to do with how well it performs.

You would know this from your present card.

 

Neither the 570 or 580 would manage P3D v4 which seems to use around 2.5GB of graphics card

RAM in normal use and they had 1.25 and 1.5 GB from memory.

[renault]

With respect to operating system memory, the following series of tables gives a guide to the maximum amount of physical memory (RAM) that various operating systems will support. With all the debate, regarding win10 vs win 7 that occurred when win10 was first introduced, I found it interesting that the physical memory limits for win7 64bit (home use series of OS) are surprisingly low compared with the win10 64 bit OS.  

 

Cheers

Renault

 

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_10

[paulb]

Hi Nick,

 

I am not sure that I would agree with your point -

 

"Equally, the amount of RAM on a graphics card has nothing to do with how well it performs."

 

Whilst the speed of the card is key, extra memory does help when P3Dv4 is being pushed hard 

[Nick Cooper]

Interesting, in what way would extra memory help a card perform better?

[paulb]

With a complex aircraft and detailed scenery (assuming most sliders are max or near max as in my case) the general experience and LOD radius is much smother IMO. 

 

Plus there are loads of tests on the internet which show the benefits of more memory on the graphics card. Even LM recommend 8GB or more.

[Nick Cooper]

If the card has, say 11GB of RAM and is actually using 2.5 GB to run P3D,

how would that improve things over a card with say 4 GB of RAM, using the

same 2.5 GB?

[Triplane]

I've a full set of ORBX scenery loaded into P3Dv4.  With all the sliders full-right and using the PMDG 737NGX I've never exceeded 3GB of VRAM usage. I have the same question as Nick (and I've asked it before with no response)...how, specifically, would I benefit using a card with more than 4GB of VRAM? What, specifically, does P3Dv4 do additionally, or do better, with more than 4GB VRAM?..........Doug

[paulb]

It wouldn't Nick 

 

But there are some 'heavy hitters' in P3Dv4 -

Dynamic Reflections, Shadows, Dynamic Lighting, Ultra Water (3D waves) and anti-aliasing.

Dynamic Reflections, Shadow Quality, and Shadow draw distance are heavy hitters because they require rendering many additional 3D views which are sampled for creating shadows and reflections.

 

My point is not that someone can't run P3Dv4 satisfactorily on a card with 4GB of memory. 

My point is simply that - depending upon aircraft and scenery complexity  and settings - a card with more than 4GB of memory can offer a smoother performance in P3Dv4.

[Nick Cooper]

Thanks, I do understand what you mean but I am still at a loss as to why 2.5 GB used out of 11GB

would be in any way different to 2.5GB out of 4GB.

 

[paulb]

Sorry Nick, but I am not suggesting that it is in any way different. If only 2.5GB is being used then extra memory serves little purpose.

But there are times when P3Dv4 will use more than 2.5GB.

[Nick Cooper]

For now, most people seem to find that the low frame rate becomes intolerable

long before they get anywhere near using all the RAM on their graphics card.

[paulb]

I don't disagree Nick. 

Just found a quote from Beau Hollis Prepar3D Rendering System Lead -

" It is possible to use more that 8GB of GPU memory in v4, but you are unlikely to do so without add-on content and very high settings. For example, using the texture exponent cfg entry to force terrain texture resolution to 1024 will use an extra 4GB. It's also possible to get GPU bound, even on high end hardware, when working in high resolutions with heavy AA, dynamic reflections, shadows, lots of dynamic lights, etc."

[Nick Cooper]

 

 

Hello Paul,

 

I am just trying to clear up any misinformation that might be creeping into this topic,

mainly for the benefit of caleb who wants to buy a better graphics card and is, I believe,

trying to make the most informed decision possible.

 

Purely as an experiment, I have loaded the PMDG DC 6 at KSEA with every P3D v4 setting at 

maximum.

I have used 3.362GB out of my 4GB of graphics card RAM but the frame rate is between 7 if I 

look towards the infamous dock cranes and 12 if I look away.

I very much doubt that my 970 would do any better if it had another 4 GB of RAM but I am reasonably

sure it would do better if it was a 1080ti, even if it still only had 4 GB of RAM ( I know they have much more).

[paulb]

Fair enough Nick. . I am exhausted now, so I will have a rest! 

[renault]

I found the foregoing discussion informative and interesting. Is it possible that all of the discussion is based upon a fixed screen resolution i.e 1080p. In my particular case , when I run 4K the VRAM requirements increase significantly(many more pixels to render) and also the gpu's work a lot harder.

 

I noticed in Paul's system info that he is running a 4K monitor.

 

Cheers

Renault

[Nick Cooper]

I'm sure you are right and there are "tweaks" that can be done to give pin sharp

scenery to the horizon with autogen that would tax 11 GB of graphics card RAM

and possibly even 32GB of system RAM.

 

I was trying to challenge the assertion that the amount of RAM has a direct affect

on the performance of a graphics card.

I am not all knowing, but logically, while more RAM will increase its capability, I cannot

see that more RAM will make it perform better per se.

As far as I am aware, performance relies on the quality of the GPU and its ancillaries

on the card.

I think that it is performance that caleb is after, he already has 4GB of RAM on his card

but it doesn't perform as he would like it to.

[caleb1]

 

Thanks for the replies.

 

1 hour ago, Nick Cooper said:

The card compares in performance to a GTX 570 or 580.

 

The 4 GB limit on VAS in 32 bit software has nothing to do with the use of RAM on a graphics card.

 

Equally, the amount of RAM on a graphics card has nothing to do with how well it performs.

You would know this from your present card.

 

Neither the 570 or 580 would manage P3D v4 which seems to use around 2.5GB of graphics card

RAM in normal use and they had 1.25 and 1.5 GB from memory.

Would this be a 570 or 580 for both v2 and v3?

9 minutes ago, Nick Cooper said:

 

 

Hello Paul,

 

I am just trying to clear up any misinformation that might be creeping into this topic,

mainly for the benefit of caleb who wants to buy a better graphics card and is, I believe,

trying to make the most informed decision possible.

 

Purely as an experiment, I have loaded the PMDG DC 6 at KSEA with every P3D v4 setting at 

maximum.

I have used 3.362GB out of my 4GB of graphics card RAM but the frame rate is between 7 if I 

look towards the infamous dock cranes and 12 if I look away.

I very much doubt that my 970 would do any better if it had another 4 GB of RAM but I am reasonably

sure it would do better if it was a 1080ti, even if it still only had 4 GB of RAM ( I know they have much more).

 

Yes, I am trying to decide on a new GPU, and I don't need to have the settings on maximum, as long as they are not extremely low.  I want the settings about half way to 3/4 right, and I want to get at least 25 FPS using a aircraft like one from Carenado, Alabeo, or A2A, in a area like KFHR with the Orbx scenery.  Could a 1050Ti do this in v4?  I am thinking so.

 

But what I was really trying to figure out in this thread, is if a 1050Ti would be good in a possible P3D v5 based on past padderns of the requirements increasing.  I dont want to get a new GPU, and then in another year need to get a new one because there is another version of P3D.

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,

 

I know I have written this to you before but it comes down to how much you can afford.

The 1050ti is probably adequate but not necessarily future proof.

The further up the 10 series range you can afford to go, the better equipped you will be

to deal with the future.

 

I remember also that you were given good advice that any of these cards may not necessarily

either be compatible with your motherboard or power supply or they might also simply

be too large to fit into your case.

 

[caleb1]

2 minutes ago, Nick Cooper said:

Hello,

 

I know I have written this to you before but it comes down to how much you can afford.

The 1050ti is probably adequate but not necessarily future proof.

The further up the 10 series range you can afford to go, the better equipped you will be

to deal with the future.

 

I remember also that you were given good advice that any of these cards may not necessarily

either be compatible with your motherboard or power supply or they might also simply

be too large to fit into your case.

 

 

Yes, those are all the things I am considering.  I have been looking at some 600W PSUs, and might get one of those too.

 

I will still look at some other GPUs and see how good I can afford.

 

What if I were to have the 745 and 1050Ti in there at the same time?  Would that maybe be good for future versions?  If I recall I think there is enough room in my case for 2.

 

Thanks

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,

no that wouldn't be a solution.

You really need to replace the 745 altogether and graphics cards can't be made

to work together unless identical, SLI ready and in a suitable motherboard.

Even if it were possible, two 745's, for example would not perform any better than

one and you would not have 8 GB of RAM available, just the 4GB twice.

[caleb1]

31 minutes ago, Nick Cooper said:

Hello,

no that wouldn't be a solution.

You really need to replace the 745 altogether and graphics cards can't be made

to work together unless identical, SLI ready and in a suitable motherboard.

Even if it were possible, two 745's, for example would not perform any better than

one and you would not have 8 GB of RAM available, just the 4GB twice.

 

Ok.  I see.

 

Thanks

[simdown42]

Hi

I'm  in need of a new graphics card but am trying to hold off until hopefully prices start to drop. Cards are expensive now due to cryptocurrency mining.

Cheers

[simdown42]

Forgot to mention there is a 1070TI coming soon which could be interesting

[Benny]

I had a 590, now a 1060 6G, to be honest.... apart from the difference in memory i don't know what is the difference. 

[caleb1]

12 hours ago, simdown42 said:

Forgot to mention there is a 1070TI coming soon which could be interesting

 

Yes that could be interesting.  Do you know of a place where I could find more information on that?

 

Thanks

[Red2112]

I had a GTX660-2GB, I now have a GTX1060-6GB.  I can now say that flying in P3Dv4.1 has become smooth and doable as to compared with my GTX660-2GB and P3D v2.5 some time ago!  Actually I had to quit flying back then because of the low FPS I was getting.  Same PC but with a GTX1060. (i5+8GB ram)

 

Also add that from what I know, at 1080p your fine with a GTX1060, but at 1440p and above you need a higher card (+1070).  Most card reviews will tell you this.  So if you are at a res of 4k, your better off with a 1080 card.

 

It all depends on where you want to live, in 1080p or 1440p and above...

 

It´s a picky situation because a 1070 will give you maybe a couple of years more of headroom with AAA titles, and a 1080, 3-4 more years, who knows! But at the rate things go, expect to swap cards every 3 years, that´s about how long I had my GTX660 before I made the swap.  That´s how the industry works!

[caleb1]

19 minutes ago, Red2112 said:

I had a GTX660-2GB, I now have a GTX1060-6GB.  I can now say that flying in P3Dv4.1 has become smooth and doable as to compared with my GTX660-2GB and P3D v2.5 some time ago!  Actually I had to quit flying back then because of the low FPS I was getting.  Same PC but with a GTX1060. (i5+8GB ram)

 

Also add that from what I know, at 1080p your fine with a GTX1060, but at 1440p and above you need a higher card (+1070).  Most card reviews will tell you this.  So if you are at a res of 4k, your better off with a 1080 card.

 

It all depends on where you want to live, in 1080p or 1440p and above...

 

It´s a picky situation because a 1070 will give you maybe a couple of years more of headroom with AAA titles, and a 1080, 3-4 more years, who knows! But at the rate things go, expect to swap cards every 3 years, that´s about how long I had my GTX660 before I made the swap.  That´s how the industry works!

 

Thanks very much for this helpful information.  I really don't fly with very high resolution, so that is not an issue to me.  I am still thinking that a 1050Ti would be the best choice for me because of the price.

 

Thanks.

[Triplane]

20 hours ago, paulb said:

It wouldn't Nick 

 

But there are some 'heavy hitters' in P3Dv4 -

Dynamic Reflections, Shadows, Dynamic Lighting, Ultra Water (3D waves) and anti-aliasing.

Dynamic Reflections, Shadow Quality, and Shadow draw distance are heavy hitters because they require rendering many additional 3D views which are sampled for creating shadows and reflections.

 

My point is not that someone can't run P3Dv4 satisfactorily on a card with 4GB of memory. 

My point is simply that - depending upon aircraft and scenery complexity  and settings - a card with more than 4GB of memory can offer a smoother performance in P3Dv4.

Thanks for that Paul. I never thought about that "stuff". I'm more into procedures and navigation that eye-candy. I'm going to try the things you mention and see what happens.

[paulb]

17 minutes ago, Triplane said:

Thanks for that Paul. I never thought about that "stuff". I'm more into procedures and navigation that eye-candy. I'm going to try the things you mention and see what happens.

 

If you want to test, try setting your screen resolution to 4k as well.

[Stewart Hobson]

Paul,

What happens if Doug's monitor can't be set to 4K resolution?  Mine can't.  Before I switched from a GTX 770 to a 1080, I ran p3dv4 with many settings (not all) of your heavy hitters set high enough to  get the desired effects.  The 770 had only 4GB and didn't flinch an inch.  It's not the on-board memory that makes the difference.  It's the internal architecture of the card that makes the difference.  "Smoother performance" is a euphemism for higher frame rates, which larger memory alone cannot achieve.  Enhanced performance, those performance aspects of the sim that are improved by a newer card's better design and architecture, is the key to a more satisfactory simming experience, what Nick has referred to in the past as the sim's ability to render the scenery's more pleasing and subtle "appearance" characteristics, as opposed to the sim's frame rate.  If one prefers to chase frame rates, that's his choice.  The enhanced appearance and performance of the sim is what is more important, imo.  So for me, the improved display capabilities of the 1080 over those of the 770 were the important issues, not the fact that I could achieve very high frame rates, "smoother performance".  And the larger memory of the 1080 was not reason for the improvement, but it's superior design architecture was.

[paulb]

38 minutes ago, Stewart Hobson said:

Paul,

What happens if Doug's monitor can't be set to 4K resolution?  Mine can't.  Before I switched from a GTX 770 to a 1080, I ran p3dv4 with many settings (not all) of your heavy hitters set high enough to  get the desired effects.  The 770 had only 4GB and didn't flinch an inch.  It's not the on-board memory that makes the difference.  It's the internal architecture of the card that makes the difference.  "Smoother performance" is a euphemism for higher frame rates, which larger memory alone cannot achieve.  Enhanced performance, those performance aspects of the sim that are improved by a newer card's better design and architecture, is the key to a more satisfactory simming experience, what Nick has referred to in the past as the sim's ability to render the scenery's more pleasing and subtle "appearance" characteristics, as opposed to the sim's frame rate.  If one prefers to chase frame rates, that's his choice.  The enhanced appearance and performance of the sim is what is more important, imo.  So for me, the improved display capabilities of the 1080 over those of the 770 were the important issues, not the fact that I could achieve very high frame rates, "smoother performance".  And the larger memory of the 1080 was not reason for the improvement, but it's superior design architecture was.

 

Stewart, you appear to be misquoting me. 

 

I have not suggested for one second that a faster GPU is not better.

 

The GPU speed is the prime determinant of a smooth and fluid flight and FPS (for any given settings). Frankly any article on video games will tell you this.

 

My only point has been that - depending upon settings - more memory will help. 

 

I did a test today with assistance from Nick. At my NORMAL settings, my GPU memory usage maxed out at over 6.2GB with a complex aircraft over detailed scenery. 

 

If you hit your memory limit then the GPU will actually slow down to avoid overheating.

[Triplane]

I can't do 4K Paul (and I don't want or need 4K). Both monitors are 1920x1200. That's the best I can do..........Doug

[paulb]

6 minutes ago, Triplane said:

I can't do 4K Paul (and I don't want or need 4K). Both monitors are 1920x1200. That's the best I can do..........Doug

 

No worries my friend . I only mentioned 4k, because as Renault pointed out in his post above - 

"when I run 4K the VRAM requirements increase significantly (many more pixels to render) and also the gpu's work a lot harder"

 

Anyway, my first 'glorious' FS experience was on a 320 x 200 monitor. We have all progressed since then! 

[Triplane]

I'm going to do two flights with everything maxxed and full ORBX scenery using P3Dv4 . One in the FSX default 172 and the other in the PMDG 737NGX. I'll fly KMRY-KSNS-KRHV-KSFO. I'm using CPU-Z to measure the maximum memory used. Do you know of any "standard" test flight that we could all use? I know there used to be one in the good-old-days i.e. FS2004 ..........Doug

[Stewart Hobson]

34 minutes ago, paulb said:

 

Stewart, you appear to be misquoting me. 

 

I have not suggested for one second that a faster GPU is not better.

 

The GPU speed is the prime determinant of a smooth and fluid flight and FPS (for any given settings). Frankly any article on video games will tell you this.

 

My only point has been that - depending upon settings - more memory will help. 

 

I did a test today with assistance from Nick. At my NORMAL settings, my GPU memory usage maxed out at over 6.2GB with a complex aircraft over detailed scenery. 

 

If you hit your memory limit then the GPU will actually slow down to avoid overheating.

The entire discussion up to now has been about memory size, not speed.  And now you're bringing speed into the discussion?  And then memory usage enters the discussion again.  Sorry, you have lost me.

[paulb]

3 minutes ago, Triplane said:

I'm going to do two flights with everything maxxed and full ORBX scenery. One in the FSX default 172 and the other in the PMDG 737NGX. I'll fly KMRY-KSNS-KRHV-KSFO. I'm using CPU-Z to measure the maximum memory used. Do you know of any "standard" test flight that we could all use? I know there used to be one in the good-old-days i.e. FS2004 ..........Doug

 

I guess that you can do any flight really Doug. Whatever you think will be the best test. Mine today was from KSAN (Orbx).

[paulb]

1 minute ago, Stewart Hobson said:

The entire discussion up to now has been about memory size, not speed.  And now you're bringing speed into the discussion?  And then memory usage enters the discussion again.  Sorry, you have lost me.

 

Just try reading my posts Stewart.

[Nick Cooper]

Indeed, we are already past the"more memory makes a smoother sim" stage.

No one is arguing that a 1080 does not perform better than a lesser graphics card.

I had not considered Renault's point about a 4k resolution and was able to defeat my

4 GB graphics card by setting DSR at 4x.

I briefly enjoyed a frame rate of 3 and pretty much ran out of graphics card RAM