Yep. I have the 2008 model, 8 x 2.8, and AMD 7950.
In my case X-Plane 10 is even more CPU bound.
Can't wait for a new Mac Pro....
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
GTX 680 (2 or 4MB VR) and X-Plane 10
- Thread starter oldmanmacdummi
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep. I have the 2008 model, 8 x 2.8, and AMD 7950.
In my case X-Plane 10 is even more CPU bound.
Can't wait for a new Mac Pro....
Yep. I have the 2008 model, 8 x 2.8, and AMD 7950.
In my case X-Plane 10 is even more CPU bound.
Can't wait for a new Mac Pro....
I think my next purchase will be a Mini for life and a Windows machine for games/X-Plane. Together they will probably be less than a new Mac Pro.
Hmm... that is true.
Still have a problem in having to use 2 computers.
The 2008 model was such a good price...! Best investment I have done.
True. But it also keeps me from being locked into Apple's hardware upgrade cycle.
4gb gtx 680
Here are the results of my 4GB GTX 680 running under Windows 7(bootcamp).
My renderings are high, maybe too high.
Note that I've got the "number of objects" as "extreme." I now have street signs, power lines, detailed highways, and street lights.
I am getting 19 to 25 fps when flying over building in a big city like SFO or LAX.
I am getting 30 fps after I am just a couple miles away from the buildings.
In an uncongested area like Shelter Cove, CA or Rohnerville, CA, I am getting 70 to 100 fps.
I am looking forward to putting in custom scenery and dialing back on the "number of objects."
For flying over water, I really like the looks of "water reflection detail" set at "medium."
p.s. The FAA took away my license for flying too low in that last picture.
Here are the results of my 4GB GTX 680 running under Windows 7(bootcamp).
My renderings are high, maybe too high.
Note that I've got the "number of objects" as "extreme." I now have street signs, power lines, detailed highways, and street lights.
I am getting 19 to 25 fps when flying over building in a big city like SFO or LAX.
I am getting 30 fps after I am just a couple miles away from the buildings.
In an uncongested area like Shelter Cove, CA or Rohnerville, CA, I am getting 70 to 100 fps.
I am looking forward to putting in custom scenery and dialing back on the "number of objects."
For flying over water, I really like the looks of "water reflection detail" set at "medium."
p.s. The FAA took away my license for flying too low in that last picture.
Like I said above, Mac Pro users are now simply CPU-limited. With rendering settings not quite as high as yours I'm getting 16 fps in the cockpit of the 777 at KSEA.
Heres an interesting little fact:
Objects, roads, forests, shadows, and AI aircraft rely heavily on bus bandwidth.
Yep: Ben mentioned this early in the v10 beta run. However, he said the chance of saturating the PCI bus was pretty small. Additionally, one of the X-Plane developers has determined the 27 inch iMac, with the i7, is about 50% faster running the same settings than an equivalent Xeon-equipped Mac Pro because the i7 is that much faster.
The only issue I can think of is whether the 670/680 is running at 2.5 or 5.0 GT/s under Boot Camp/Windows. Off the top of my head I can't remember which it is.
I think it goes like this:
2GB and 4GB 670/680 that are unflashed run 2.5 GT/s under Windows (Bootcamp).
2GB 670/680 will run 5.0 GT/s under Windows if flashed.
4GB 670/680 will only run 2.5 GT/s under Windows even if they are flashed.
Which brings up an interesting question:
Would a flashed 2GB 680 give better frame rates under Windows than my 4GB 680?
Flashed cards can run 5.0 under Windows if done right.
I just got off 2+ weeks on a commercial shoot and will shortly be listing 4GB versions of 680 and 670 that run at 5.0 in either OS.
Hmm.... that is interesting. Seems logical too.
Not if you use an AMD card.
Makes me even more happy I got the 7950 inside my ol' Mac Pro.
Here's waiting for a new Mac Pro with 9970 (Please, Tim...!)
Even if you use a 7950 you're still driver- and CPU-limited with current Mac Pros. For 1/3 the money you can build a Windows machine while will give you three times the frame rate.
I understand that.
But I will not buy a 2nd computer just for X-Plane.
The "ultimate Mac Pro" (i.e. with the fattest AMD Radeon in the case of X-Plane 10) should be the best of both worlds.
But it looks like I am wrong even though it was not my finding to begin with.
This is what AndyGoldstein has to say. I hope he doesn't mind my quoting him.
"The correlation between object density and cpu load is far less clear in XP10. If the scenery is designed to take advantage of instancing (and the default scenery is), the cpu is not a bottleneck for maximum object density. On my 2 year old Core i5 with a GTX 460, I can fly over the default KSEA area at extreme object density and high detail distance with cpu left over. The GTX 460 saturates first. Scenery that uses large numbers of unique objects does not lend itself to instancing and will put a much greater load on the system. Regardless, Ben has told me he does not feel the bus is a bottleneck. A friend of mine also proved this by running multiple instances of X-Plane on a single PC with multiple video cards. Two instances of X-Plane ran as fast as one; three ran somewhat slower, indicating that the memory and/or bus were becoming saturated."
Makes it all the harder to understand...
In my case (Mac Pro '08, 8 x 2.8 GHz, 16 GB 800 MHz RAM, Radeon 7950 Mac edition) I am sure that the 7950 is not saturated:
If I lower my grfx settings (textures, HDR, resolution) it hardly increases my FPS count.
TBH, even lowering objects, roads, cars, etc, doesn't give me the FPS boost I was expecting.
It "feels" like CPU speed / RAM speed / Bus speed is what limits my system.
Until recently I said the same thing. But, after spending a day installing v10 on my Boot Camp partition, only to find out that, even with an SC 670, my machine is CPU-limited, I changed my mind.
Sorry, but it won't be. The i7s are about 50% faster clock-for-clock than the Xeons in the Mac Pros. Add to that nVidia under Windows is faster than AMD under OS X. And, unless Apple releases some amazing new Pro hardware this year, it will only get worse.
no not really..3770 Geekbench's at about 13k my quad is 11K or so. If your taking k SKU's and OC's then ok..
A new Xeon will surely be on par with the latest i7s.
Apple just needs to add the option of the best AMD grfx card (for now the 7970, later the 9970), then we'll be there.
Point is: at what price...
Apple just needs to add the option of the best AMD grfx card (for now the 7970, later the 9970), then we'll be there.
Point is: at what price...
Sorry: I misspoke. X-Plane devs have found the i7s to give about 50% more frame rate simply because they're faster clock-for-clock than the Xeons in the Mac Pros. As X-Plane's frame rate is still largely limited by the speed of your fastest core, the i7s are a better bet than the Xeons.
----------
Which is why I will probably have a Windows machine for X-Plane next.
That GTX 680 of mine is very powerful as you well know. I like the results I am getting but I think my frame rate should be a little higher in bigger cities with more buildings and objects.
I think, like dpny is saying, that my 2008 cpu is limiting my frame rate.
I spent good money on a video card in a computer that can't handle it.
When the next Mac Pro comes out, if Apple brings one out, it will have inferior video cards as usual and it will cost a fortune. The cpu will be great for professional applications but will be inferior to the Core i7 for gaming.
Even though I don't want two computers, the odds are I'll keep my 2008 Mac Pro because I love OS X. But I get a PC with an OC'd Core i7, tons of memory, and a GTX Titan just to run X-Plane. That PC will be more powerful for gaming than the Mac Pro and it will be a lot cheaper.
I really, really understand that!
I do feel I torture myself in keeping a Mac Pro, because I know I sacrifice performance....
I have one desk on which I hobby with my Mac, which, of course, includes X-Plane 10. I can't justify having a PC next to my old Mac Pro just for X-Plane.
That's why I want the best of both worlds: the "ultimate" Mac. The "xMac" would so be the best option: Core i7 and Titan / 9970...
That's why I want the best of both worlds: the "ultimate" Mac. The "xMac" would so be the best option: Core i7 and Titan / 9970...
Yes, that would be ideal.
I don't expect a Mac Pro at WWDC but maybe Apple will give us a clue as to the direction they are going, or not.