Fermi GF 100 512 CUDA processors vs GTX 275 / 240 Stream processors

[drumsonly2002]

  Forgive my lack of Geek Knowledge, but the techno terms are a  weakness for me. From what I understand these Cuda and Stream processors are a fancy name for shaders. If this is correct, FSX being a shader lover the GF 100 has 272 more shaders than a GTX 275. This is over 100% more shaders with the Fermi. All this being said, and if this is so, in terms of FPS improvement what do you think?

  If I am wrong, and this Cuda and Stream processors are not shaders, all in all, same question, what approx FPS expected? I know this is asking for a guess, but I thought this would be a fun tech topic to trash around until the new cards are unleashed. I hope it is all that and a bag of chips. I have a chance to buy a couple of GTX 285's, but waiting for the new Nvidia cards. I hope the waiting is worth it as I am purposely not buying a CPU, nor graphics card until the new stuff is released.

  So, all that, what do you think? My guess, very inaccurate, but I'll give the can a kick, the GF 100 / i7 920 / OC 4ghz ... a 10-15 FPS improvement  using a GF 100 vs a GTX 275. That, with texture flow may be putting FTX / FSX with FPS that are very acceptable and smooth on high slider settings. I think FSX is coming into it's own, with Orbx graphics, new technology and hardware.

[drumsonly2002]

I realized my FPS assumption was inaccurate. TextureFlow alone adds approx 10+ FPS. So, add the new GF 100 hmmm.... another 10-15FPS? Thus FSX, stock, running at, 15FPS over a heavy graphical setting, TF + GF-100 = Over 30+ FPS. I assume, speculate, guess 2010 should be a good year for FSX, FTX / Orbx. if the new Graphics card by Nvidia is what they claim, and the new i7 930's are great overclockers, maybe the new hardware will run FSX in all it's blazing glory.

  Actually a lot of guys here have rigs that run FSX really nicely so it's not just hardware to buy, but adjustments of the sim. Anyways thought it might be fun to speculate what may be. We will know by spring how it all works. Any thoughts, actions and additional verbiage welcome.

[Guest J van E]

another 10-15FPS? Thus FSX, stock, running at, 15FPS over a heavy graphical setting, TF + GF-100 = Over 30+ FPS.

So you expect a gain of 100%...? I don't think so. Something like an extra 2 or 3 fps (coming from 15) is usually what a next gen GPU can give in FSX. FSX is all about the CPU: there is more to gain in getting a better CPU or OC'ing one. I'd be surprised if the new GPU would give someone who has an fps of 15 something like 18: that already would be 20% and in the GPU world 20% is a lot. But 100%...? No way.

Would be nice if I was totally wrong, of course.

[Ian Routley]

CUDA - not useful in FSX.

As for the other things, you cannot tell what the impact will be based on specs.

Your best clue as to how fast this card is ... is the cards they are comparing it to.

You will have to wait and see ,,,,,  This is probably NOT the card for FSX.

[drumsonly2002]

J Van E, you are correct, it would be 100% increase. Your post puts the FPS into perspective. If the new hardware isn't a bag of chips and dip, the hard core guys will be selling off their GTX 285's etc. to upgrade. Hopefully deals will be had this spring. My guess, is the real eye opener this year is TextureFlow Technology. I would think the best bet in trying to achieve higher FPS, buy Orbx TextureFlow treated add on's. This Cuda stuff is all Greek to me, (no offense for the Greek nation as they are the best!). If NVidia can do a dance increasing the shaders maybe the new stuff will be better. Hate to throw hard earned cash as technology that FSX doesn't benefit from. I was thinking Cuda is a fancy name for shaders, thus Cuda may only be good for the new stuff. Playing the waiting is hard as I almost got all the stuff to build a new computer. In the meanwhile I'll work navagation.

[lost]

  About the ony thing the new Nvidia card would add to FSX would be 32x AA without taking a performance hit  ( http://www.guru3d.com/article/nvidia-gf100-fermi-technology-preview/5).  I don't know how much that would improve visuals over 8x or 16x though.

[drumsonly2002]

That is a good article lost. Had an A-HA moment with this Quote "512 CUDA processors (Unified Shader cores)"

Quote again "So the rumors are correct, the most high-end GF100 product will come with a wicked 512 shader processors (which NVIDIA renamed to CUDA cores). BTW note to NVIDIA, we like to call things what they are and not marketing brand everything, it's confusing for the end-users you know. Shader processors it is then." End Quote.

    Since FSX is shader dependent GPU wise, may this be the GPU break through we have been waiting for.  I was told  from a FSX expert, FSX is shader dependent.

  So, 100% more Shaders. Deal / No deal? My humble 8800GT has 112 Shaders or Cuda cores http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce_8800.html thus the new card would have over 400 more shaders than a 8800GT. The more shaders the merrier!

  Cuda processors... Girrrr !! Cat like performance. Was called Steam processes for the GTX series. I guess that handle ran out of steam heh! Now it's like a cat .. a wild hungry animal... dangerous, cunning.. stealthy, ready to pounce on the pixel. A Cuda! Calling it what it is.. shaders is not cool enough.. Next year they will come out with a card with.. Shark processors! The year after that Thunder Processors, then Super Nova Light Speed Flux Inducer. By 2020, The Amazing Laser  Atom Splitting Pixel Enhancer, also known as shaders back in 2008.

  There is a bit of hype with the card. Who will be the first to get it and bench it? The other good thing about the card is the 3D support. Paired with 3d monitor should be interesting. Hopefully 2 cards will do Triple Head in 3D.

  News Flash !!!!! Cuda is not a cat, a cougar is.. my dumb. The Cuda is a car.  Spent so much time typing this post, then find out CUDa is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA  Too late, too tired to figure it out. Why I thought cuda was a cat... well.. getting older and mind isn't as sharp I guess. My cat rant was ok though? No, I am not drinking.

  I bet those cards will cost an arm and a leg. Gonna start saving now.

  Last thought. Reading on the net, Cuda / FSX does not benifit from Cuda as hcornea mentions. That is widely supported so why Cuda is called shaders may be innaccurate. So my Cuda / shader rant most likely is incorrect. From what I understand, Cuda does not appear to be shader. I spent so much time typing this post, leaving it as is, 1.5 hours. Now 2 hours due to research.. sigh. Wikipedia does not mention Cuda is Shader. I'll have to read that article a bit more to figure it out. Sorry for any misinformation. The top article, the guy I quoted calls it shaders, but I cannot find supporting evidence outside of his statement.  So, I start the post believing Cuda is Shaders, end the post not believing it is shaders. This is a by polar post.  I think Cuda and Shaders are two different things.

  History of graphic cards show of improvement for FSX. The new GF 100 series seem akin towards new technology, so maybe it may not be the wonder card we are waiting for. Regardless of what I say, speculation is like knitting with your eyes closed, and imagining the results, it's only as good as the knitters skills. Not the most profound illustration, hopefully makes the point. We will find out what is what in the near future.

 

[drumsonly2002]

From what I understand Shaders and Cuda are tow different things http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/W.Langdon/cigpu2008/slides/shader-vs-cuda.pdf

Bummer, was hoping the new cards would be good for FSX. Time will tell.