It's definitely not FSX in terms of predicting how it will perform.  In some situations it seems to hold up and exceed FSX for sure, and in others it's surprisingly unable to do well.  What I find is that basic sim slider, autogen, mesh, even LOD, don't have as big an impact as they might in FSX.  And for new DX10/11 effects, w/ the Titan I have on board those feature hardly adversely affect performance either.  To illustrate, I took off from KSBA Rwy 07 in the RA T Duke at sunrise w/ FTXG, autogen Dense, vegetation Normal, and all of the DX effects maxed, except Shadow Quality which I had set at Very High, or one notch left of Ultra, and see around 43 fps.   By the time I was on approach at KLAX, frames had dropped to around 24-25.  What's not so good is that moving sliders significantly leftward, frames increased only very marginally, to around 27 or so.   This is a moderately easy plane to process for FSX, and in less complex areas maxes out at my 60Hz VSYNC lock.  But coming in to LA Area frame rate really tanked by comparison, and there wasn't a huge amount I could do to fix that.  Changing DX effects had no appreciable impact at all, which is predictable I think.

 

Now take this shot from FSX w/ PMDG T7 at EIDW.  I will be shocked if V2 gets anywhere near this after what I see w/ the above example:

 

It's [very hopefully] possible T7 will perform better than Duke relatively speaking, but I'll be very amazed if that's the case.   I continued the flight out of Dublin to Frankfort and flying through very busy clouds w/ lots of 3D lighting below, LOD = 5.5, and same other sliders as V2 was setup with, and the lowest I ever saw was 37 or so.

Here's an example of how V2 responds to a high end airport add-on that while it has an installer (FB's KPHX) it appears to NOT be able to utilize much of the GPU per se and suffers severely in frame rate in V2, whereas hardly at all in FSX.  I'm in the RA Duke in both shots:

 

FSX here.  Also, taxiing around the nicer parts of this masterpiece I had wicked sharp AA and frames stayed between 37 and 44 no matter where I taxied.  In V2, w/ the same scenery sliders ONLY ONE NOTCH LESS, I was seeing 21 fps--and there was negligible difference by moving LOD from 4.5 to 6.5, whereas in FSX I was at 5.5.  I ended up turning shadows way down to only the plane in/out, which made the biggest difference and got fps  up to 24--that IS NOT good, nor is it real easy to improve this by changing the settings that make V2 attractive.

 

 

Here's V2 in a similar situation, frames are only 25 (V2 had not 'lost focus'), and what's quite possibly NOT a good thing for this sort of situation, is GPU utilization is very low compared to setting up a flight for example at KSBA where the same exact settings put the Titan at 80% utilization:

 

 

Now note what happens when we pan away from FB's KPHX--GPU use GOES UP, as does fps.  This, again, has nothing to do w/ 'losing focus'.:

 

 

I know these shots aren't well controlled but I can attest frame rate was quite stable until as I say I panned away from KPHX...

I have similar hardware like yours and my fps tanks at area like KSEA, KLAX, KSFO which are extremely autogen heavy. It's true that many sliders in P3D2 have much less effect on fps when moved to the left, very different from FSX. J van E discovered that the LOD slider actually only changes the range of texture loading, not the range of autogen drawing which seems to stay at LOD=6.5. That may explain why sliding LOD slider to the left has little effect on FPS.

 

I wonder P3D only runs one thread on one core for autogen processing. If so I hope LM will eventually break the process to two different cores so we can finally enjoy autogen heavy scenery with high fps. Or Intel can make a 10GHz CPU soon enough...

What resolutions and texture settings are you using?

What resolutions and texture settings are you using?

Same in FSX & V2:  REX E+ textures & FTXG scenery.  I have max texture in both .cfg files at  4096.  I do not get OOMs ever on either platform.  1920x1200 resolution; 16xAF in game & in Inspector; AA is Super CVAA 64X 4v12. 

 

What I wonder about is whether or not developing an add-on like KPHX to support DX10/11 effects processing will truly have much of an impact or not.  This all must depend on what the GPU is being asked to do in the rendering of the airport components.  I would love to know the answer to this question as it is very material to just how far the basic engine can take the simulation going forward.