I bought an RX6800 November last year for my main build. The performance isn’t bad with a mix of high and ultra settings but it’s not where I want it to be. Sometimes I’m in the 30s with fluctuating fps with a 152 in a less demanding area. When I lowered my res to 2560x1080 my frame rate doubled and it was so much smoother!
My CPU is a 5800x3D and I am considering going back to Nvidia which tends to be more stable from experience.
I also use Xplane 12 which has issues on the AMD side.
5800x3d is legit one of the best processers out there. Keep that one.
second thing, i would not chase frames with MSFS because it’s a never ending vicious circle. This is the most demanding game available and even those with 4090’s are brought to their knees. 4K is very tough to run especially at 100hz. You might get some better frames tweaking some settings but honestly, there’s very little visual difference between 2 and 4K. It’s only perceived because you’re running at half the frames at twice the resolution.
your card is about the equivalent to a 3080 (non-ti) so it’s not a “Bad” card. You’re just pushing it too hard trying to run it at what i can assume is maxed out everything. Terrain and Object LOD, Motion Blur, Depth of Field and Render scale are probably the biggest culprits for performance hits.
Rx6800 (non xt) is the version I have which is equivalent to the 3070ti. The thing is when I lower my settings I don’t gain much performance. I believe 3440x1440 is starting to push the card a bit much.
you got it. There’s twice as many pixels in 4K than 2K (i mean…duh right? lol) so the card has to work twice as hard.
Weird, I can hit maybe 80 fps in less demanding areas at 3440x1440 with my 6800XT. Mostly high and some ultra.
It’s the clouds that usually get me.
Yeah the clouds on Ultra destroys my performance. I tend to run it at high.
Something else must be wrong on my end. Fps tend to be in the mid 70s in less demanding areas.
I’ll upgrade then thanks.
Well I obviously knew that lol that’s why I was considering an upgrade. You missed the point of the post.
I’ll consider an upgrade!
okay. but when that new card doesn’t perform like you want, i’m not gonna be the least bit shocked when you see marginal increases in performances
Have a nice day
Are you main thread limited by any chance? Then a beefier GPU won’t do much IMO
Actually 4k is 4x the res of 2k but whatever.
Performance is now back there where it was. Less demanding areas I’m now in the 60s, mid 70s.
Still considering a gpu upgrade since the GPU can’t match monitors refresh rate.
What are your lods set to?
If lowering your settings isn’t yielding more performance it would suggest that your CPU is the blocker. I’ve got a 5800x3D and am set to 180/200.
2k typically refers to QHD, or 2560x1440. That has 3.7m pixels, compared to 8.3m at 4k. Close enough to be considered 2x.
The OP’s monitor is ultrawide, so ~60% of the number of pixels at 4k.
In digital cinema, which is also the most commonly used standard, 2k equals 2048 x 1080 pixels (Full HD is in fact a ‘false’ term for 2k as it is not the full res, same with UHD which is less than 4k but people use the term nonetheless). 2560x1440p could be considered 2k QHD, but it’s not 100% correct, as is UWQHD which has clearly more than 2k horizontal pixels.