X-Plane Performance and Bottlenecks?

[Kieran]

Hi all,

 

So I've recently upgraded to a new system (for reasons other than X-Plane), and have just gotten some spare time back so I've been getting back into things, but I'm a bit disappointed by the performance I'm getting. My specs are:

 

- i7-5960X 8 core CPU (with hyperthreading disabled) @ 4.3 GHz (overclock)

- 32 GB DDR4 2400 MHz RAM

- ASUS x99 Deluxe

- GTX 980 Ti 6 GB (overclocked to ~1450 MHz)

- Samsung 850 Pro 512 GB SSD

- Windows 10 (I haven't had any problems with any other games or benchmarks underperforming in Windows 10)

- 1080p monitor

 

I don't have a screenshot of my settings at the moment, but what I'm wondering about is that neither my CPU or GPU usage are near 100%. I know X-Plane is very single-threaded, but the highest percent usage on a core is hovering around 60-70%. Meanwhile my GPU usage is at 30-40%. Also I know that I'm nowhere near running out of 32 GB RAM or 6 GB VRAM.

 

In X-Plane looking at the fps overlay, I'm seeing times of 0.061 for the frame, 0.056 for the CPU and 0.026 for the GPU. To me this tells me X-Plane is being bound by the performance of my CPU. So my question is, is there some other potential bottleneck in my system that's keeping it from using more of my CPU thread as it's only at 60-70%? Or is there some setting in X-Plane that is notorious for draining the CPU?

 

It is possible that having been away from the scene for a few months I've missed some things, but I was hoping with a system like this to be able to run X-Plane pretty close to max specs.

 

Regards,

 

Kieran

Edited August 26, 2015 by Kieran

[mb339]

Hi all,

 

- i7-5960X 8 core CPU (with hyperthreading disabled) @ 4.3 GHz (overclock)

- 32 GB DDR4 2400 MHz RAM

- ASUS x99 Deluxe

- GTX 980 Ti 6 GB (overclocked to ~1450 MHz)

 

 

Probably your PC is too powerful for x-plane and not need 100% percent to run x-plane at maximum performance.

[Kieran]

 

Probably your PC is too powerful for x-plane and not need 100% percent to run x-plane at maximum performance.

 

Yeah except at the moment I'm getting around 20 fps. I know I can turn down some settings and get more fps, but I'm just wondering if there is something slowing things down

[Ben Russell]

What aircraft are you using? Does it have plugins? Have you tried some of the defaults? (Im fond of the Cirrus Jet, no plugins, relatively simple..)

[Nano]

Hi Keiran,

 

From my experience "extreme" objects is what puts the most pressure on my CPU.  It doesn't seem to matter whether flying low in a helo, or high in a tube of pain.   I can easily see 60+ FPS if there are not many buildings in the current visual.  Throw in an 'extreme' number of objects such as Munich using OSM data, and it drops down to 20-22.  It would be nice if XP could adjust this setting on the fly to maintain a minimum FPS, but that's just wishful thinking at this time.

 

As for you CPU.  It doesn't appear to be the top single-core performer based on a comparison with the 4790K.  Certainly not a slacker though.  

[Kieran]

I went back and changed a few settings around so now I'm getting better fps, and I'm testing with the Cirrus Jet. I'm still seeing CPU utilization on one core of 60-70%, and GPU utilization of 50-60%, but perhaps that's normal for X-Plane?

 

Nano, benchmarks are usually run at stock speeds, so the 5960X running at a stock speed of 3.0 GHz won't perform as well as the 4.0 GHz 4790K, at the same speed however they'd run very similar seeing as they're built on the same Haswell architecture, so my overclock would bring it inline with a 4790K at stock speeds.

[FloB]

I would turn down water reflections, they hit the CPU pretty bad on my system.

A screenshot of NVIDIA settings would be helpful too, a lot can be messed up there.

 

Just to make sure:

No power saving modes active?

Power supply and cooling sufficient?

 

Cheers

Flo

Edited August 27, 2015 by FloB

[chris k]

Water reflection -> Complete

 

Means:

 

"Draw double the number of Objects" -- once above the horizon, once in the reflection.

 

You effectively aren't running "mega tons" objects, you're now running " 2 x Mega Tons"

 

Object drawing = Heavy on CPU already.

Object drawing + water reflections = 2 x Heavy on CPU

 

- Ck.

[Kieran]

Thanks for the advice, I've turned down the water reflection to default, but it doesn't change my fps unless I'm flying near water.

 

My NVIDIA settings are as per default with the exception of "Power management mode" being set to "Prefer maximum performance". I don't have any power saving modes, and with a 1000W PSU I'm in the clear there for sure. Regarding cooling, that's also easily sufficient. The CPU temps are around 60 degrees, and GPU gets to 70 degrees (though my GPU has a silent fan mode, where the fans don't spin unless the temperatures are above 65 degrees I think it is).

[Nano]

Kieran,

 

Try also setting you Shadows to "On Aircraft".  This too is a big draw on CPU power and I think you'll be happy seeing shadow moving around the aircraft.  The other settings give you very little bang for the buck so to speak.  

 

Then you might consider bumping the objects/trees up to second from the highest setting (I think it's mega-tons) or even the highest setting as you should have spare capacity for added eye candy.  I also find that cars hardly tax the CPU and take effect immediately when you pick a car setting.  Which is nice as you can quickly change the amount of cars based on the size of the city/town you are flying over.  I find it really bumps up the realism when flying low and slow.

 

Finally, last night I installed a GTX 750 Ti on my sons AMD 6800K computer.  Did some testing and was amazed at how much better it ran XP than my 2009 i7 iMac with 512 MB VRAM.  The 6800K is considerably lower than my i7 860 in performance, but his machine ran at 30 FPS over KSEA with the settings I mentioned about.  I'm looking to build the same rig as you, but with the 4790K as a CPU.

[Kieran]

Nano,

 

Thanks for the advice, got my fps much smoother now, up around 60 fps.

 

Yeah the 5960X isn't the most suitable CPU for X-Plane, but have you seen the newly released Intel CPUs?

[Dino1981]

I went back and changed a few settings around so now I'm getting better fps, and I'm testing with the Cirrus Jet. I'm still seeing CPU utilization on one core of 60-70%, and GPU utilization of 50-60%, but perhaps that's normal for X-Plane?

 

Nano, benchmarks are usually run at stock speeds, so the 5960X running at a stock speed of 3.0 GHz won't perform as well as the 4.0 GHz 4790K, at the same speed however they'd run very similar seeing as they're built on the same Haswell architecture, so my overclock would bring it inline with a 4790K at stock speeds.

 

When I see your rendering settings and the shadow setting and 4xSSAA, I just can say WOW, because your FPS-value is awesome!

[stealthbob]

Nano,

 

Thanks for the advice, got my fps much smoother now, up around 60 fps.

 

Yeah the 5960X isn't the most suitable CPU for X-Plane, but have you seen the newly released Intel CPUs?

 

 

Apparently the new Skylake supports "inverse hyperthreading" which should greatly aid single thread programs like XPlane....hopefully we will start to see some report back on this.

[Kieran]

Yeah indeed, should be interesting to see how much performance gains it delivers

[Igor4U]

Here's a Peek from La Frenchy Frenchmen:

 

From this Thread:

 

Intel Skylake Update - Got 14nm ?

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=83962&page=1

 

I found this Post:

 

Intel Core i7-6700K, i5-6600K et Z170 : Skylake en test

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/940-16/cpu-jeux-3d-x-plane-10-f1-2013.html

 

 

Thank you to France - Wish more Tech Review Sites would Benchmark using X-Plane 10

[chris k]

Great find

 

I've snapshotted those pictures to use again and again when people ask why AMD processors shouldn't be used.

 

- Ck.

[stealthbob]

It would seem that Inverse Hyperthread (2 cores one thread) is not active in Skylake?

 

I havent seen anywhere where Intel touts that this is true?

 

I highly doubt they would be this quiet on this rather large improvement on CPU design.

Edited September 4, 2015 by stealthbob

[wim1976]

Indeed it was an assumption at diverse IT forums. But Intel informed at the press-release that Intel doesn't have implemented Inverse Hyperthreading. But other changes in the architecture are responsible for some major single thread performance as seen in the Mozilla Kraken benchmark. So I Don't expect a great performance gain for X-Plane. Of course I am interested in performance benchmarks with X-Plane with this processor.

[deanbrh]

Hi Keiran,

 

A couple months ago, I put together a similar system to you (i4790k/gtx980 TI/32gb/SSD) , and was also initially dissapointed in x-plane performance.

 

I am now currently flying around certain *selected* places with pretty much everything maxed (except shadows) and maintaining 60fps, and it looks absolutely beautiful.

 

The main advice I can give you is think carefully about where you are flying and how that correlates to the demand on the hardware. Major cities or really dense urban areas, you are not going to get better than 30fps, period. You can however probably ramp everything up and fly in less immensely packed areas and have a very enjoyable experience and framerate.

 

I have found that over the months, I am getting better and better at tweaking the settings to the demands of the area and getting a feel of how to get the best performance and eye-candy for the place that I want to fly. Initially though, I was just trying to ramp everything up and fly in packed areas.

 

I recently made a post over at the org about my settings, which you may find useful: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=88627&p=947739

 

I am not recommending the post as advice for your particular settings or hardware, it is just a note of the only way I seem to be able to manage max settings/60fps.

 

I recommend keep toying with settings, mods, visibility, location etc.

 

Couple of things which have definitely improved my performance: Sky Maxx Pro (Looks prettier, and better performance). HD Mesh Scenery V3 seems to improve my performance. Shadows kill my hardware. Avoid large cities or very packed dense areas.

Edited September 7, 2015 by deanbrh

[Kieran]

Thanks deanbrh, I'll take that on board

[ScreamingBreeze]

Shadows are referenced in this string.  I hadn't been paying attention to shadows at all.  Had a nasty time with the Carenado Malibu on start-up:  The panel was so dark, I was having to go to 3-D View, which allows scrolling down, to find lighting knobs.  If I wanted to do without 3D, such as quickly loading and shooting a 3 mile or 10 mile approach to a new airport, I couldn't see VS or much of anything.  Stumbled upon and completely turned off shadows in Rendering, and that problem is solved.  Another, actually more annoying problem has been course changes  - now you see the panel and whatever you're looking for inside the aircraft (e.g., landing lights, the ability to double-check whether flaps are extended, etc.), now you don't.  As shadows are thrown over the cockpit, you're suddenly IMC in the cockpit!!  Mentioning in the event anyone experiences problems with dark panels, sudden dark silhouettes in cockpit - probably due shadows being enabled.