Hi Res Clouds/Water - CPU or GPU drain?

[jackhimer]

I understand that higher resolution clouds or water can decrease performance.  If I change my cloud resolution to 2048 or 4096 (and of course my fsx.cfg), does the main additional strain fall mostly on the cpu or the gpu?  Or does it strain both equally?

The main reason I ask is that I think my CPU is maxing out but my GPU has processing power to spare, so to speak. 

[timmo32]

hello jackhimer,well the most likely answer to your question would be yes,it depends on your cloud density slider in fsx too if maxed to create complete overcast conditions you will lose frames in heavy weather,i can tell you i love bad weather too and even with my system i get less frames and lag,the faster the cpu speed the better mate,gpu im not 100% sure but the gtx 480 card does make my fsx playing in bad weather alot better tho,and im running a stock i7 ,see my signator,i was running a system simular to yours,but really had to upgrade,the saying is the more eye candy details you enable in fsx, the more cpu power you will lose,tho im sure someone else can help with a better answer,in this awesome forum,goodluck mate

[rohan]

Since FSX was written more years ago than most people care to remember, the one thing that affects its performance more than any other is CPU cycles - the more you can give it, the better,

Ro

[jackhimer]

Thanks for the replies, and I understand that fsx is cpu dependent.  However, when talking about a texture increase only I am starting to wonder if this particular change only would fall mostly to the GPU.

It seems to me that the only measurable increase I see on my system is on the GPU when I go from 1024 to 2048. 

[alainneedle1]

Thanks for the replies, and I understand that fsx is cpu dependent.  However, when talking about a texture increase only I am starting to wonder if this particular change only would fall mostly to the GPU.

It seems to me that the only measurable increase I see on my system is on the GPU when I go from 1024 to 2048.

So you answered your own question.

[jackhimer]

Thanks for the replies, and I understand that fsx is cpu dependent.  However, when talking about a texture increase only I am starting to wonder if this particular change only would fall mostly to the GPU.

It seems to me that the only measurable increase I see on my system is on the GPU when I go from 1024 to 2048.

So you answered your own question.

Not really.  My CPU runs at essentially 100%.  It does this regardless of texture size.  If these textures eat extra cpu cycles, they are doing so at the expense of something else.