Possible new rig - question re: texture size

[jpreou]

Hi Guys,

 

you can see my current laptop in my sig. I run only 1024 textures at the moment in P3Dv2 in windowed mode on my external screen (laptop screen disabled). P3D is configured with the settings just below and I don't really do much in the way of tweaks.

 

• FXAA = Off
  
• MSAA = 2 Samples
  
• Texture filtering = Anisotropic 4x
  
• Texture resolution = medium 1024 x 1024
  
• Resolution = 1920 x 1080 x 32 (when full screen and also Windows desktop res)
  
• Vsync = on
  
• Triple buffering = off
  
• Target frame rate = unlimited
  
• Wide-view aspect ration = on
  
• Mipmap vc panels = on
  
• Hardware tessellation = off (I actually tried this one and it killed me!)
  

 

My expectations are reasonable, I think, and I do just tend to put up with occasionally low FPS, occasional stuttering and watching scenery 'detail in' in from of my eyes (if that phrase makes sense). Even so, my laptop generally runs P3D ok, certainly better than it did FSX (although I never did try DX10). I absolutely won't go back to FSX, so I don't want to start that discussion please.

 

So here is my question: I've seen both 2048 and 4096 textures mentioned from time to time, along with other settings like AA which I've never really touched. If someone could provide advice on what the settings FXAA, MSAA and texture filtering do that would be great. Actually, if just occurred to me this might be in the LM help file, so I'll go take a look at that.

 

But the other part of this question is texture size: does it really make a difference to the visuals and how much does it hurt performance, or what is the impact? Can someone post some comparisons of the same area in the 1024 and 2048 and 4096 settings? Or know of any comparison screen shots?

 

I'm hoping I might, just might, be able to organize a new rig this weekend and I'd like to start a clean and fresh P3D setup with settings I actually understand.

The new rig is likely to be as follows:

 

• Intel i7-4770K (though I may drop to an i5 to keep the cost down)
  
• Crucial Ballistix Tactical memory, 8GB (its cheap though, so may go to 16GB)
  
• Intel Z87 based mobo (Asus preferred, but may be Gigabyte). The Gigabyte GA-Z87X-D3H has been quoted at this stage.
  
• Asus GTX 750 Ti graphics card
  
• Seasonic 750W psu
  
• WD 1 TB Black hdd for the OS (though I am considering a 128GB SSD instead / as well, just for Windows)
  
• Seagate 3TB Barracuda for archive / backup stuff
  
• Win 81 (kind of got used to it at work and I'm gonna give it a crack; I can drop back to Win7 no probs if I need yo; yes I've read about all the USB issues)
  

 

Cheers

 

 

[zamb]

Trust me, a 750W power supply is pure overkill for that system. Don't believe the myth.

[spirit_66]

Trust me, a 750W power supply is pure overkill for that system. Don't believe the myth.

It's not an overkill! What will happen if he decide to add a 2nd GPU? It's always good to be on the top with the PSU!

My rig is easily sucking > 550 Watt out of the wall!

Spirit

[zamb]

Another victim of the myth.

[spirit_66]

Another victim of the myth.

If you thinks so! I go my way and you go yours, fine.

Spirit

[jpreou]

It is for now, but I have longer term plans to add a second graphics card and monitor.

And I've seen the kind of oddball crap you can get when power isn't good.

[zamb]

The entire system with a 4770K will pull about 125W and about 200W with a 4.5Ghz overclock under full load:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Haswell-Review-Intel-Core-i7-4770K-Performance-and-Architecture/Power-Consumption

A GTX 750ti pulls 60-70W max under full load:
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-750-ti/specifications
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-750-ti-review,3750-21.html

Max system pull: 200W+70W=270W overclocked.... 195W with no overclock.

 

Conclusion: 750W is overkill for your system, especially with a top brand PSU from Seasonic (your preference), even if you add another GPU.

 

 

 

And I've seen the kind of oddball crap you can get when power isn't good.

 

You prefer Seasonic. Seasonic is actually one of the best out there, they even often a 7 years limited warranty on parts and labor and "more wattage" doesn't equal "better quality".

[spirit_66]

I don't think, I stick to facts and the facts prove you wrong.

OK, so tell me the facts. What's the disadvantage of having a powerful PSU?

Spirit

[Adam Howarth]

Zamb its good to see you introducing data in these discussions. While I dont dispute your data per se, its important to remember that OEM stated thermal design power (TDP) and wattage demands are for default clocks. In practice its easy to use twice as much power as the OEM spec when overclocking. The reason is obvious - higher clocks generate higher heat and require higher voltages to overcome the signal degradation that occurs at higher clocks.

 

With my system in the sig below, when I apply a system wide set of stress tests (stress tests use more than normal apps as a general statement) I draw 1280 watts from the wall measured by a professional grade watt meter. Keep in mind too with your calculations that no PSU is 100% efficient and it will draw more from the wall to provide the regulated power for the PC devices.

OK, so tell me the facts. What's the disadvantage of having a powerful PSU?

Spirit

 

Basically there are none other than most PSUs have an efficiency curve sweet spot where your power bills are reduced optimally. The sweet spot usually isnt in the beginning or middle of the power output. However if you were say possibly going to expand the PC later on with say SLI, then being close to the max output could end up being a limiting factor for future upgrades.

[jpreou]

zamb, that's good info to know, so thanks for that. The guy did recommend Seasonic (not one I've heard of as I have been out of PC building for about ten years!).

Even so, we discussed what would be sensible and he did say I could get away with whatever the slightly lower model was: I elected to give myself some 'wiggle-room'.

It may well be overkill, but it was just a few extra dollars and I'm happy to have the extra overhead and not be forcing the PSU too hard.

It was a small dollar uplift, so no biggie.

Right, PSU discussion out the way!

Any one care to chime in on the texture question, and provide some comparative screenies?

[spirit_66]

........

A GTX 750ti pulls 60-70W max under full load:

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-750-ti/specifications

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-750-ti-review,3750-21.html

......

So why do they say at GeForce 300 Watt minimum power required?

Spirit

[Adam Howarth]

jpreou provided you have enough texture RAM to house the big textures I find the P3D performance is pretty much negligeable going to 4096 resolution textures. Hi res is much crisper and easier on the eyes.

 

Anisotropic texture filtering isnt so much a big deal on performance either

 

Anti Aliasing techniques are expensive because many of them rely on super sampling. 

[jpreou]

Cheers nullack. I did read the LM help, but it didn't open my eyes too much as it is pretty light on detailed info.

I guess when the new rig arrives I'll just run through a bunch of tests.

[Rob Newman]

Realistically it depends on what kind of performance you're after. Some consider FPS to be the indicator of performance, while others still look at other factors. While higher resolution textures have a negligible effect on FPS, they do take up more memory and as such can affect how efficiently scenery is loaded...the dreaded blurries can be a result...

[jpreou]

Thanks Rob, I think simply getting stuck in and testing will be the go. My laptop runs P3D ok, but I certainly don't get the best experience (which I accept) and I certainly see slow loading scenery, black objects that pop the detail and blurred textures that slowly load in. Not all the time, but often enough. It doesn't concern me much: I accept the limitations of the hardware I run ... but with new hardware obviously I'm looking for a better experience. So testing testing testing seems to be the correct answer here.

Cheers

[Dave_YVR]

A GTX 750 Ti is a bit on the low end. Don't sell your new system short.

[siggiHLN]

I think for P3D you choose your graphiccard a liitle bit higher. I´ll buy a new Rig too and i ´ve decided to buy  GTX 780 (TI).

Only to think about (Option), not a must have ! (But I think on your words to get a second one (SLI). Better one really performence Card.

 

Good luck

[jpreou]

I know the card is a little lower than what is available out there, but it is higher than the 650M on my laptop.

I had to keep the cost down a little; I have plans to put in two decent cards early next year (hope my wife doesn't see this) and scale out to multiple screens.

[utley]

Gotta say that its not the PSU that makes the difference, its the amount of amps it delivers to the rest of the computer. You cna have a 1500w psu and still not deliver enough power to your video card. If you have a corsair, you can bet your butt that it delivers just enough amps to your system to get it functioning correctly.