Is it going to be worth going 3090 to 4090?

[Werewolf_fs]

 

[Supmua]

47 minutes ago, Werewolf_fs said:

 

CPU frametime dropped as much as 3-4ms with the 4090.  I bet you’ll see better results with the default VR preset vs High, even better with custom settings.  Can probably eliminate CPU FT spikes by reducing rendering res a bit too.

Finally a good GPU for SC operation for high-res VR headsets.  Using a standard preset for testing like this is good because everyone can reproduce and compare.

Edited October 16, 2022 by Supmua

[WipeUout]

Going from 25 ms (40 FPS) to 18 ms (56 FPS) GPU frametime is quite impressive, that is a 40% performance increase.  Still hard to judge the raw gain since the CPU is completely bottlenecked.  We need to see benchmarking where the CPU frame rate stays well below the HMD refresh rate to see the real gain from the GPU.  

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

From all the VR performance showcases, there is finally a good enough card for high-res (4K) HMD. No, we still cannot get 90 fps most of the time until something has been done to the engine. I rest my case.

We can also blame some tests are done with SteamVR, OpenXR. The former is infamous for its inefficiency. 

And note that the 4090 GPU temperature, there seems to be some room for "expansion".

Online chatted with a guy at SCAN.UK, looks like I cannot use Fractal Design Torrent Compact I am going with FE or the Asus one, I have to go full size.

Edited October 16, 2022 by VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants

[Voyager]

6 hours ago, Slick Twitchy said:

I got it for a <profanity>ty price, and off of Amazon. It came pretty quick, so I think it's (somewhat) available-if you can accept the pain of paying over retail price by a little. I paid over 2,500 USD. I barely researched it, so the one that I got may have been larger than standard versions, but it wasn't even close to fitting. I'd say a good 30% larger than my 3090. I figured it would probably be "safer" to get a system built around it, and return it via Amazon. If someone wanted to buy it, I still have it, but am returning it shortly. I think it would take too much trust to coordinate the transaction. But I'd be willing to try for this community. 

They're all huge. SimHanger a list of checks: 

 

From the rumors, nVidia was trying to launch a 600W version so the coolers are all sizes for that. 

It did not work. Not at all. 

 

[ismaeljorda]

 

[WipeUout]

Tried that with high settings with my resolution a bit higher with supersampling (3652x3004) and I'm getting 53 average FPS after 3 min but my CPU frametime is about 9 to 10 ms once airborne.  Your CPU is bottlenecked and not giving enough breathing room to the 4090 to unleash it full power.  I think that the gain is much higher than what is shown, probably in the 60-70% range.   

Edited October 16, 2022 by WipeUout
update

[some1]

I don't know if it's Varjo Aero or your CPU, but with 5800X3D and Reverb G2@150% (3868x3784) I see much better frametimes in the same spot despite higher resolution.

This is High preset with mirrors enabled, like on your video:

null

compared to 

 

And this is with the settings I use and mirrors off, much more practical for VR than the "HIGH" preset. At these settings 4090 holds 90 FPS quite well in many scenarios, not everywhere of course. 

Edited October 16, 2022 by some1

[speed-of-heat]

Pre-load radius distance 100?

Edited October 16, 2022 by speed-of-heat

[Harlikwin]

13 hours ago, Werewolf_fs said:

About Ismael Jorda test with the 4090, I already talked to him about the fact that the instant action of the chosen, Apache in Syria, is a bit limiting due to the CPU time, he has already told me that he will continue to do tests in more appropriate instant action missions to really see what brings this new 4090.

I personally have been surprised by the improvement about 3090Ti in a mission limited by the CPU, also improving the time of the cpu!!

 

I have heard theories that by upping some gfx settings in dcs you can unload the cpu since at some settings it might shift to the gpu. Idk if I believe it, but going from low to high shadows had little impact for me. 

[some1]

10 hours ago, speed-of-heat said:

Pre-load radius distance 100?

 

I see no point in going higher, at least for SP. It only makes missions load longer. Maybe it was a useful setting back in Lock On days, when your HDD topped at about 60 MB/s

[Werewolf_fs]

hace 10 horas, Harlikwin dijo:

I have heard theories that by upping some gfx settings in dcs you can unload the cpu since at some settings it might shift to the gpu. Idk if I believe it, but going from low to high shadows had little impact for me. 

Al configuration and settings are the same in both tests.

hace 1 hora, some1 dijo:

I see no point in going higher, at least for SP. It only makes missions load longer. Maybe it was a useful setting back in Lock On days, when your HDD topped at about 60 MB/s

If you have more than 16GB of RAM, increasing that value helps to reduce the suttering associated with loading objects and scenery. If you have 32gb or more, better take it to max value, it does not affect performance.

[BigBANGtheory]

21 hours ago, VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants said:

From all the VR performance showcases, there is finally a good enough card for high-res (4K) HMD. No, we still cannot get 90 fps most of the time until something has been done to the engine.

So what is the word on that? I saw something about moving to a Vulkan based rendering engine some years ago but not heard much since though I may have missed it...

[Hammer1-1]

13 hours ago, some1 said:

I don't know if it's Varjo Aero or your CPU, but with 5800X3D and Reverb G2@150% (3868x3784) I see much better frametimes in the same spot despite higher resolution.

This is High preset with mirrors enabled, like on your video:

null

compared to 

 

And this is with the settings I use and mirrors off, much more practical for VR than the "HIGH" preset. At these settings 4090 holds 90 FPS quite well in many scenarios, not everywhere of course. 

 

i get better performance with my 3080ti and all this maxed out except MSAA which I keep at 2x.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Hammer1-1

[BIGNEWY]

45 minutes ago, BigBANGtheory said:

So what is the word on that? I saw something about moving to a Vulkan based rendering engine some years ago but not heard much since though I may have missed it...

Multithreading will be first, then vulkan, both in progress, we will share more news when we are ready

thanks

[Ulukai]

15 hours ago, some1 said:

I don't know if it's Varjo Aero or your CPU, but with 5800X3D and Reverb G2@150% (3868x3784) I see much better frametimes in the same spot despite higher resolution.

This is High preset with mirrors enabled, like on your video:

null

compared to 

 

And this is with the settings I use and mirrors off, much more practical for VR than the "HIGH" preset. At these settings 4090 holds 90 FPS quite well in many scenarios, not everywhere of course. 

 

 

Wow, how you Guys are able to play with 150% Supersampling with this High Resolution Headsets? I'm doing something wrong? I'm barely able to play with 60% Headset Resolution HP Reverb G2. (rtx3080). Or is the Performancejump from rtx3080 to rtx3090 Series that much?

Edited October 17, 2022 by Ulukai

[DirtyMike0330]

On 10/13/2022 at 12:00 PM, speed-of-heat said:

- finally most of the time I can reach a steady frame time with oxr and my existing 3090.

will I get a new card, I likely will but it doesn’t “need” to be today, unlike when I upgraded from my 1080ti.

Same here. Preliminarily, I don't see anything about the 4090 that makes upgrading from a 3000 series a worthwhile investment to me. I still believe that the 3090 is going to be more than sufficient once multi threading issues in flight sims get sorted out and will just wait until that happens before I consider any GPU upgrades for minimal gains. 

I don't understand why folks still believe that a GPU is going to magically solve VR flight sim issues when the culprit is widely known to be the the CPU limitations. 

[dburne]

1 minute ago, DirtyMike0330 said:

Same here. Preliminarily, I don't see anything about the 4090 that makes upgrading from a 3000 series a worthwhile investment to me. I still believe that the 3090 is going to be more than sufficient once multi threading issues in flight sims get sorted out and will just wait until that happens before I consider any GPU upgrades for minimal gains. 

I don't understand why folks still believe that a GPU is going to magically solve VR flight sim issues when the culprit is widely known to be the the CPU limitations. 

 

Yeah but the 80xx series of cards may be out before multithreading is... 

Fwiw still hanging on with my 3090 myself.

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

If one chooses to ignore the hard numbers and how cool the GPU while giving more frames, or to those who is still running something other than 3090Ti, yeah, there is no point or any sense. I am speaking for myself with a wimpy Quest2 which suffers from ghosting and not getting everything to the fullest.

Again, don't tell starving people that fat is bad for their heath.

[Al-Azraq]

What a monster of a GPU, but terrible pricing.

Makes me consider storing my HP Reverb G2 and come back two years later when I upgrade my 3070 Ti to enjoy VR at 100% resolution. Maybe I just do that and back to TrackIR for now. Happy to know that we can brute force VR now, but that doesn't mean ED has still to do their part and optimise the game.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Al-Azraq

[some1]

2 hours ago, Ulukai said:

Wow, how you Guys are able to play with 150% Supersampling with this High Resolution Headsets? I'm doing something wrong? I'm barely able to play with 60% Headset Resolution HP Reverb G2. (rtx3080). Or is the Performancejump from rtx3080 to rtx3090 Series that much?

I had a 3080 before 4090 and unfortunately, with only 10GB of VRAM, RTX3080 really sucks with high resolution headsets. It's been sort of "okay" two years ago, but ED increased VRAM usage since then, especially with the new modules, terrains, and AI units.

I have a simple mission with AH-64, overcast and IHADSS on, sitting on a tarmac in Caucasus. Even at SS 70%, the mission was nearly unplayable on a 3080, with GPU frametimes around 23 ms. Now with RTX4090 the frametimes dropped to 9.5 ms at the same location and settings. Also CPU frametimes dropped from 11ms to 8.5 ms, since it doesn't have to juggle the textures in and out of memory. Turns out that mission requires more than 17 GB of VRAM at the very beginning, and it only gets worse as you keep flying. 

So in this particular scenario at 70% SS, I went from low 40-ish, not enough for reprojection to kick in, to a pretty stable 90 fps. Even at 150% SS it still hovers around 90 fps, the increased resolution simply does not seem to take much toll on a new card. 

Edited October 17, 2022 by some1

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Thanks, so anything less than 24GB (i.e. like the True 4080) is a no-go...

[some1]

It think 16GB is a bare minimum. It may even be quite ok for now, but not necessarily for the next 2 years. 

[edmuss]

1 hour ago, some1 said:

Turns out that mission requires more than 17 GB of VRAM at the very beginning, and it only gets worse as you keep flying.

 

49 minutes ago, VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants said:

Thanks, so anything less than 24GB (i.e. like the True 4080) is a no-go...

Don't rely on the VRAM usage shown by fpsvr or task manager as gospel, they only show the allocated not the acutal used.

On my 12GB 3080ti I might typically see 12GB allocated according to task manager but openxr is measuring it's usage as 6-7GB.  There are times where it will use all 12GB but generally it's much lower than allocated; VRAM usage is now a recordable metric in the openxr toolkit.

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

I know there are some out there -- but I have yet to see any performance comparison using OpenXR...