Jump to content

All you want to know about fsx performance, simplified!


Auza

Recommended Posts

This is a simplyfied guide of how to build the perfect computer, in a easy way, you can take a look of the complex NickN bible if you want, but I will explain things faster.

 

1 step-choosing the processor:

 

-The better single thread perfomance, the better results, fsx will rarely make total use of a dual core, so more than a dual core wont improve FPS, but it can improve smoothness, why?, because the scenary loading, scenary loading is totally multi core handled, so a quad/six/octa core would obviously do it better in this subject, and what does smoothnes mean?, it means you will see less micro stutters. I dont recommend to purchase Intel six/octa core extreme line because those are too expensive and FSX wont take very well adventage of them.

 

-Amd should only be used if you dont want to spend very much money in the processor, in this case, the minimun is an fx 9590, with this processor yo can play in kjfk with heavy weather in ultra high at decent FPS(Aces team said than the minimun acceptable FPS were 15, anything lower, is called stutter), but be careful, with this processor yo cant use complex addons like PMDG because yo will literally bring the system to it knees, if you want high settings plus addons, the intel core i7 is the only processor you should consider.

 

-OVERCLOCK!: this is the most important thing for a flight simmer, and Intel k series is made for this, dont overclock AMD, AMD processors overheat very easy. for example, an intel i7 4770K/4790K can reach 4,8 ghz if you are very careful with core voltages and temps, this will provide you the top fsx perfomance(I have not idea as this moment of how broadwell i7 5775c will perform).

 

Additional info: FSX STEAM added automatic affinity mask calculation, this would make the processor runs as its best, because as you knows, the default fsx doesnt make very good use of multi core and it has some perfomance issues, for example, all cores go to 100% with no apparently reason, this is an issue corrected in FSX STEAM.

 

2 step-The gpu:

 

-A lot of people said ridiculous commentaries saying that the gpu doesnt help nothing in fsx perfomance, they said that fsx is a cpu bound application, yeah it uses more cpu that a common game, why?, because fsx have a lot of calculations to do(Weather changes,ATC), a lot of actions to do and a lot of commands, even the scenary loading is handled by cpu(hand placed scenery, Ai traffic/Airport traffic and complex airplanes affects Cpu too), but it doesnt mean you have to forget the gpu, dont forget FPS killer effects like bloom, scenery shadows,autogen, water reflections and car/boats traffic are handled by gpu, so if you want to raise settings to the max you will need more than a poweful processor.

 

-Gpu power is not measured in Vram, it is gift by the bus bandwiht(pci express) and its filterings( pixel rate, for AA and resolutions and Texel rate for anisotropic filtering), so if you want power buy the most powerful PCIE 3.0, for example, the gtx 980 ti, or if you dont want to spend a lot of money, an gtx 970 would do it very well, but remember, dont use a PCIE 3.0 card if you have a PCIE 2.0 processor such as i7 2600k or older, why?, because the gpu wouldnt run at its full power.

 

-Stay away from SLI, dual core gpus, those are only useful if you have exagerated resolutions like in multi screens combined with the hightest AA and AF, if you are not in those conditions, the simulator will perform even worse than using one card.

 

Additional Info: FSX STEAM improved bufferpools use so the simulator perfomance would increase in a 10%, this combined with the affinity mask improvement, would give you a total 32% perfomance improvement, I have FSX STEAM and I can asssure the results are a lot better than the old FSX.

 

3 step-Memmory:

-Better memmory wont increase FPS!, but it will give you better smoothnes(less stutters).

-the perfomance isnt matched but the ammount of memory, it its matched by the memory speed and memory timings,

for example as NickN says in his bible, a 2400mhz/CL9 memory would do it perfect, no more than 8 gb are needed in FSX.

 

4. step-Hard disk:

-As the memmory, it wont increase FPS, it will increase smoothnes.

-It is well known that an SSD is the top perfomance provider in FSX, so the best idea is to buy a high capacity Samsung SSD where you can store windows and FSX, this will make the simulator performs as its best.

 

5. step-the user:

-Please if you want the best perfomance dont purchase super scenery packages like New york city x/manhattan x or FTX pacific northwest, those addons literrally would screw your computer,dont purchase captain sim 777, it has a terrible perfomance and it isnt even close to the real plane in terms of simulation, be aware of what you purchase, you have to be careful with your money and with you machine perfomance.

 

So, in conclusion the best is:

 

-I7 4770k/4790k overclocked to 4,8 ghz( see in NICK N guide how to overclock the processor, you have to be very careful with that)...(You can purchase a brodwell 5775c, or even wait for skylake 6700k if you want, it is close to release.

-GTX 980 TI.

-8gb ram 2400mhz/CL9(CL8 if possible).

-Samsung 850 EVO Proffesional.(single SSD).

 

One last Note: Sorry for my english, Im from South America.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Thank You for your info. :)

 

Have you any advice on a good compatible motherboard?

Intel Core i7 x980 @ 3.33Ghz, Cores: 6, HT: Disabled, ASUS Rampage III Extreme, 24.0 GB Kingston HyperX 1600 PC3 12800 DDR3, EVGA GeForce GTX 690, 4GB GDDR5 SDRAM, LG 4K 52" TV, Antec Kuhler H20 620 Liquid CPU Cooler, Antec Quattro-1200 Power Supply, Win-10 Pro 64-bit. (Built: 01/13/2011)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank You for your info. :)

 

Have you any advice on a good compatible motherboard?

 

Hey BK,

 

That's a damn nice computer for 2011! I'd be interested in what you'd put into the next one.

Being an old chopper guy I usually fly low and slow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank You for your info. :)

 

Have you any advice on a good compatible motherboard?

 

Hey BK2000, the Asus Z97 is the optimal motherboard!, it is compatible with haswell and broadwell processors, is not extremely expensive and works very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, in the cheap seats, I'm getting excellent results with a Pentium G3258.

 

Cheap Z97 MOBO

Over Clock to 4.0 GHz (will go higher, but I'm taking it easy so far)

8 GB RAM

GTX 750 Ti

 

This system gives “Windows Experience” readings in the high 7s and never drops below 30fps anywhere in FSX – even with pretty much all of the sliders well to the right.

 

For a £400 ($600) system, I'm happy.

 

Caveat: I'm a very casual simmer, I don't run multi-monitors and I don't have a ton of expensive payware additions.

 

As ever, ymmv!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forums Auza, and thanks for the input.

BTW, I'm pretty positive you know what you're talking about, but "Asus z97" per se is not a motherboard model. Asus (and other manufacturers) offer many different motherboards with a "z97" chipset.

 

bk2000 - I agree with Rupert about the specs on the machine in your sig (but I think you already knew that ;)) - what kind of FSX performance are you getting with it? I'd have loved to have your rig before I recently upgraded and probably wouldn't have had to.

 

Happy 4th of July!

 

E-Buzz :pilot:

i5 4690k @ 4.7gHz (Water-cooled), 8GB ram, GTX 960 2GB, 850 EVO 1 TB SSD, 50" LED TV + 2x27" monitors, Thrustmaster HOTAS, Win 8.1 Pro, P3DV4, TrackIR, EZDOK, a bunch of Orbx stuff, a chair, a hacked-up desk, and a cold drink.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forums Auza, and thanks for the input.

BTW, I'm pretty positive you know what you're talking about, but "Asus z97" per se is not a motherboard model. Asus (and other manufacturers) offer many different motherboards with a "z97" chipset.

 

bk2000 - I agree with Rupert about the specs on the machine in your sig (but I think you already knew that ;)) - what kind of FSX performance are you getting with it? I'd have loved to have your rig before I recently upgraded and probably wouldn't have had to.

 

Happy 4th of July!

 

E-Buzz :pilot:

 

You are right dude!, Z97 is offered by different manufacturers, but as NickN said in his bible at Simforums, Asus is the best way to go, yeah, its more expensive but remeber, you get what you pay for(Asus is the best for overclocking).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, in the cheap seats, I'm getting excellent results with a Pentium G3258.

 

Cheap Z97 MOBO

Over Clock to 4.0 GHz (will go higher, but I'm taking it easy so far)

8 GB RAM

GTX 750 Ti

 

This system gives “Windows Experience” readings in the high 7s and never drops below 30fps anywhere in FSX – even with pretty much all of the sliders well to the right.

 

For a £400 ($600) system, I'm happy.

 

Caveat: I'm a very casual simmer, I don't run multi-monitors and I don't have a ton of expensive payware additions.

 

As ever, ymmv!

 

As I posted in step 5, the user is very important for fsx perfomance, if you dont like to adding tons and tons of addons and you play with custom settings your perfomance can be good even with cheaper rigs, even a 2006 computer with core 2 duo qx6800 can perform the sim well if you tune correctly the settings and dont fill it with addons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bk2000 - I agree with Rupert about the specs on the machine in your sig (but I think you already knew that ;)) - what kind of FSX performance are you getting with it? I'd have loved to have your rig before I recently upgraded and probably wouldn't have had to.

 

Happy 4th of July!

 

E-Buzz :pilot:

 

Well, I've been tweeking FSX for years and seemed to have lost track of what works and what doesn't work for my machine.

As of today, On a good day I'll get in the upper 20's fps in default airports, but only between 12-17 fps when I'm at a payware airport such as KPHX by Flightbeam.

FSX CHANGES in NOTEPAD Format.txt

Intel Core i7 x980 @ 3.33Ghz, Cores: 6, HT: Disabled, ASUS Rampage III Extreme, 24.0 GB Kingston HyperX 1600 PC3 12800 DDR3, EVGA GeForce GTX 690, 4GB GDDR5 SDRAM, LG 4K 52" TV, Antec Kuhler H20 620 Liquid CPU Cooler, Antec Quattro-1200 Power Supply, Win-10 Pro 64-bit. (Built: 01/13/2011)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a AMD 9590 clocked 5Ghz, I have ORBX Global, ORBIX North & South Island, GSX Ground Services, Majestic Q400, PDMG 737, 17ish WOAI packages, FS Passengers X, FSrealWXpro, all sliders full except for shipping and vehicles which are at 15% ( I don't pay attention to them so why have them there ), I get 35-40fps under heavy load on the ground at NZAA and YSSY. I think bang for your buck AMD has it, even if price isn't a issue with you for a processor its hard to not look seriously at a AMD. Your claims that you should only look at a 9590 and unfounded, I have built for other people FSX dedicated systems with FX6300 and FX6350 CPUs are they perform just as well. Also your comment about only considering a i7 with all those add-ons is just plain wrong, i5s perform just as well and in most cases better.

Throwing your money away on a i7 that gives you the same or lesser performance than a i5 or a 9590 6300 or 6350 makes no sense unless you are running other software such as video editing which is where the i7 stands out on its own, the money you save can be spent on better CPU cooling, GPUs ( I agree what you say about those ), motherboard etc.

With FSX its all about the Ghz and couldn't care less about having 4, 6 or 8 cores.

I am a Intel fan and use Intels in my everyday system, but for my dedicated FSX machine as much as it pains me AMD hits the sweet spot.

You should of said "if you have no other choice use a Intel".

AMD 9590 5Ghz, Asus 990X Sabertooth, Asus 285 Strix, 8Gb Ram x2 RipJaws, Corsair Hydro H100, Corsair CM750M, 2TB Short Stroked HDD, Samsung 120Gb SSD for OS, x3 ViewSonic VX2370 LED Frameless Monitors. x1 Semi Understanding Partner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bk2000 - I agree with Rupert about the specs on the machine in your sig (but I think you already knew that ;)) - what kind of FSX performance are you getting with it? I'd have loved to have your rig before I recently upgraded and probably wouldn't have had to.

 

Happy 4th of July!

 

E-Buzz :pilot:

 

Well, I've been tweeking FSX for years and seemed to have lost track of what works and what doesn't work for my machine.

As of today, On a good day I'll get in the upper 20's fps in default airports, but only between 12-17 fps when I'm at a payware airport such as KPHX by Flightbeam.

 

As Nick N in his bible said, seating and tweaking for hours isnt very effective, yes, there are some tricks like affinity mask and bufferpools=0 that you can use, but they are inestable and dont work for every computer, you are getting stutters in KPHX, do you have bloom, scenery shadows or water reflections activated?, these effects eat a lot of frames and they dont improve visual experience very much at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a AMD 9590 clocked 5Ghz, I have ORBX Global, ORBIX North & South Island, GSX Ground Services, Majestic Q400, PDMG 737, 17ish WOAI packages, FS Passengers X, FSrealWXpro, all sliders full except for shipping and vehicles which are at 15% ( I don't pay attention to them so why have them there ), I get 35-40fps under heavy load on the ground at NZAA and YSSY. I think bang for your buck AMD has it, even if price isn't a issue with you for a processor its hard to not look seriously at a AMD. Your claims that you should only look at a 9590 and unfounded, I have built for other people FSX dedicated systems with FX6300 and FX6350 CPUs are they perform just as well. Also your comment about only considering a i7 with all those add-ons is just plain wrong, i5s perform just as well and in most cases better.

Throwing your money away on a i7 that gives you the same or lesser performance than a i5 or a 9590 6300 or 6350 makes no sense unless you are running other software such as video editing which is where the i7 stands out on its own, the money you save can be spent on better CPU cooling, GPUs ( I agree what you say about those ), motherboard etc.

With FSX its all about the Ghz and couldn't care less about having 4, 6 or 8 cores.

I am a Intel fan and use Intels in my everyday system, but for my dedicated FSX machine as much as it pains me AMD hits the sweet spot.

You should of said "if you have no other choice use a Intel".

 

Dude, if you test your perfomance in the heaviest places like KJFK or KLAX, with all your addons, you will see what im talking about, I was an AMD FX 4100 @3,6ghz user and I can assure the perfomance was horrible compared to my actual i7 3770k @3,9ghz, even with 3770k stock speed, the perfomance is awsome compared to AMD, about i5 vs i7, there is an adventage, no, im not talking about hyperthreading, is the processor cache, the better the cache, the more data that can be processesed, so the more smoothness, but your point is right, is not necessary to spend a lot of money in a rig, it depends on user preferences, you get what you pay for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to say something, there are two things you should check about your actual system, the CPU load, and the GPU load, your actual frame rate is given by the subsystem that has more load, for example if you have 25% GPU LOAD, and 50% CPU LOAD, then you are CPU limited, so the part you have to upgrade is your processor. SLI OR DUAL CORE GPUS are only useful if you are Gpu limited, if not, you are wasting your money.

 

NOTE: this is only useful if you are not considering a full system upgrade, if you want a full system upgrade just follow my simplified guide based on Nick Ns bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, if you test your perfomance in the heaviest places like KJFK or KLAX, with all your addons, you will see what im talking about, I was an AMD FX 4100 @3,6ghz user and I can assure the perfomance was horrible compared to my actual i7 3770k @3,9ghz, even with 3770k stock speed, the perfomance is awsome compared to AMD, about i5 vs i7, there is an adventage, no, im not talking about hyperthreading, is the processor cache, the better the cache, the more data that can be processesed, so the more smoothness, but your point is right, is not necessary to spend a lot of money in a rig, it depends on user preferences, you get what you pay for.

 

Ok just went to LAX and LHR haven't been to either for a while LAX was 32fps and LHR was 34fps I also added some more AI that flew to both those airports over and above what I had already so both would be heavily populated. Granted these are stock airports for me so only the addition of ORBX Global as far as scenery goes, but all other add-ons were in effect. The aircraft of choice was PDMG 737.

My point is that in a dedicated FSX machine a CPU half the price of a i7 gives you better performance. A FX4100 will be out performed by your i7, no question there. Even before someone decides on a CPU you need to have worked out what you are using your system for. If its a straight out FSX sim then a AMD is a no brainer, you cant argue with performance and price when a CPU worth double the money wont give you the same performance, in fact chances are it will give you less performance.

Now if you looking for a general gaming system and you are playing AAA titles then i7 has the goods, plain and simple and you need to compromise that its not going to run FSX as well as a dedicated system. The same goes for a everyday use computer its a compromise between that and FSX and depending what else you are wanting to run dictates in the end what CPU best suits.

Having bench tested countless systems over the years in countless variations I haven't seen a Intel CPU out perform its equivalent AMD CPU in the last 2 years in a dedicated FSX system to such a level that you would even notice a difference and the performance is so much better that its worth paying double the money, it just hasn't happened.

AMD 9590 5Ghz, Asus 990X Sabertooth, Asus 285 Strix, 8Gb Ram x2 RipJaws, Corsair Hydro H100, Corsair CM750M, 2TB Short Stroked HDD, Samsung 120Gb SSD for OS, x3 ViewSonic VX2370 LED Frameless Monitors. x1 Semi Understanding Partner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok just went to LAX and LHR haven't been to either for a while LAX was 32fps and LHR was 34fps I also added some more AI that flew to both those airports over and above what I had already so both would be heavily populated. Granted these are stock airports for me so only the addition of ORBX Global as far as scenery goes, but all other add-ons were in effect. The aircraft of choice was PDMG 737.

My point is that in a dedicated FSX machine a CPU half the price of a i7 gives you better performance. A FX4100 will be out performed by your i7, no question there. Even before someone decides on a CPU you need to have worked out what you are using your system for. If its a straight out FSX sim then a AMD is a no brainer, you cant argue with performance and price when a CPU worth double the money wont give you the same performance, in fact chances are it will give you less performance.

Now if you looking for a general gaming system and you are playing AAA titles then i7 has the goods, plain and simple and you need to compromise that its not going to run FSX as well as a dedicated system. The same goes for a everyday use computer its a compromise between that and FSX and depending what else you are wanting to run dictates in the end what CPU best suits.

Having bench tested countless systems over the years in countless variations I haven't seen a Intel CPU out perform its equivalent AMD CPU in the last 2 years in a dedicated FSX system to such a level that you would even notice a difference and the performance is so much better that its worth paying double the money, it just hasn't happened.

 

Ok Darryl, its your choice, and obviously the user choice how much money they will expend, and about how amd performs, it depends of what processor we are talking about, as you can see in passmark for example(only for reference, I know fsx perfoms on its own way), the amd fx 9590 with 5 ghz turbo and 8 cores can barely outperform the 3,9 ghz turbo, four cores I7 4770k, that means the core power per clock diference its enormous, now imagine a 5ghz 4770k. You didnt told us how many fps you got in kjfk, and the test gets more interesting if you set storm weather, addons and take a look from 31L runway, manhattan can be seen from that angle, I made a lot of tests, and that is the worst scenery load situation you can imagine, so if you want to benchmark what your rig is capable, try that test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Done the JFK test as you asked, normally I use real world weather but as requested I did user defined weather, thunder storms and some broken cloud patterns further out. I did a taxi, take off, circuit over Manhattan then vectored back to the airfield and landed 31L as you stated, then completed a taxi to a gate. This time I used my Majestic Q400. Again all add-ons were active other than my real time weather add-on and of course my NZ ORBX packs. At the airfield I got 33fps and the fps only went up after departure. Approach was interesting as it briefly dropped for a few seconds to 29fps but was steady at 31fps and increased to 34fps on taxi back to gate.

As far as passmark goes that really has no bearing on how FSX performs with each CPU, its like me comparing my 9590 against a 4770 playing BF4 in which the i7 would perform better and stating that it means the i7 must be better for FSX, it absurd. Yes I agree a 5Ghz 4770 would probably perform better than a 4770. But would it out perform to the degree you would notice it without looking at the fps and if you could notice it does it out perform it to the degree that you are willing to pay more that double the money. If you are willing to do that to just chase 2 or 3fps then you have more money than you have sense. I agree with you the i7 is the better all round CPU, but when it comes to FSX its not, that's quite clear.

Its not about AMD vs Intel its about what gives the best simulation performance at the best price. Your statement about you should choose Intel if you can because it performs better in FSX is just plain wrong, and if someone was to take that advice without doing their own research in what CPU will perform best for them under their own individual system requirements be it a strictly FSX machine, a FSX and general home computer, or a gaming computer, they could be paying $300 or $400 dollars more for a CPU that simply wont be any better or probably worse if we are talking strictly about FSX.

If your Intel CPU was the same money as my AMD CPU and I was doing a FSX build, I'd still go with the AMD CPU because it just simply performs better for a FSX build than the Intel one, if they performed the same I'd go Intel simply because I prefer Intel in general. As I said its not about brand its about having the best FSX experience you can possibly have. If only FSX was simple to run well it would save a lot of head scratching and late nights of tweaking.

AMD 9590 5Ghz, Asus 990X Sabertooth, Asus 285 Strix, 8Gb Ram x2 RipJaws, Corsair Hydro H100, Corsair CM750M, 2TB Short Stroked HDD, Samsung 120Gb SSD for OS, x3 ViewSonic VX2370 LED Frameless Monitors. x1 Semi Understanding Partner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

daryl737,

Very impressive performance from your rig in JFK :cool: - would you mind sharing the tweaks you're using in the fsx.cfg?

I get good performance everywhere, especially in orbx regions, but not in JFK.

 

Auza, I appreciate what you were trying to do when starting this thread - boiling down nick n's guide/fsx build philosophy to it's basics.

What may be nice for those who have already built/bought a computer and have a basic FSX install is some kind of add-on guide - something that would give an idea of the impact that certain add-ons may have to performance.

Maybe like an eye-candy vs performance guide?

The eye-candy part will be very subjective, but the impact to FSX performance a bit less so.

This may be opening a huge can o' worms, but it might be helpful ;)

 

E-Buzz :pilot:

i5 4690k @ 4.7gHz (Water-cooled), 8GB ram, GTX 960 2GB, 850 EVO 1 TB SSD, 50" LED TV + 2x27" monitors, Thrustmaster HOTAS, Win 8.1 Pro, P3DV4, TrackIR, EZDOK, a bunch of Orbx stuff, a chair, a hacked-up desk, and a cold drink.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"-Please if you want the best perfomance dont purchase super scenery packages like FTX pacific northwest, those addons literrally would screw your computer"

 

I run every ORBX region and regularly fly out of airports such as FSDreamteam Vancouver and Taxi2Gate Seattle in planes like the PMDG NGX and Coolsky DC-9 and my FPS remains well above 30 with most of my settings cranked all the way to the right. I run FSX on a 4770k at 4.4 GHz and a GTX 780.

If anything, PNW is easier on FPS than default since it's way better optimized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you the i7 is the better all round CPU, but when it comes to FSX its not, that's quite clear.

Its not about AMD vs Intel its about what gives the best simulation performance at the best price. Your statement about you should choose Intel if you can because it performs better in FSX is just plain wrong, and if someone was to take that advice without doing their own research in what CPU will perform best for them under their own individual system requirements be it a strictly FSX machine, a FSX and general home computer, or a gaming computer, they could be paying $300 or $400 dollars more for a CPU that simply wont be any better or probably worse if we are talking strictly about FSX.

If your Intel CPU was the same money as my AMD CPU and I was doing a FSX build, I'd still go with the AMD CPU because it just simply performs better for a FSX build than the Intel one, if they performed the same I'd go Intel simply because I prefer Intel in general. As I said its not about brand its about having the best FSX experience you can possibly have. If only FSX was simple to run well it would save a lot of head scratching and late nights of tweaking.

 

That's just plain wrong. In order for a i5k chip to equal even a locked i7 4790 at

3.6 ghz, it would have to be clocked to around 4.6-4.7 ghz. If clocked at 4.5 ghz,

it's CPU scores are going to be a slight bit less than the 4790 at nearly a ghz less

clock speed.

And in the case of the unlocked i7 4790k, if you clock it to 4.7 ghz, it will likely tear

the 4.7 ghz OC'ed i5 4690k a new you know what.. :rolleyes:

 

If there were no difference between the two, no one would buy i7's.. :(

 

BTW, I paid less for my i7 4790 than the usual going rate for the i5 4690k.

You have to be a prudent shopper these days, and look for the deals.

And my last puter was an AMD. It was a good machine being as it was cheap

to build. Good bang for the buck, and ran FSX quite well overall.

 

But the i7 4790 even locked runs FSX a LOT better. I'd actually need a bigger

font size for "LOT" to put it in the proper perspective. ;)

And I didn't pay much for this build compared to what many people spend.

And I've had no reason to scratch and tweak to get it to run right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

daryl737,

Very impressive performance from your rig in JFK :cool: - would you mind sharing the tweaks you're using in the fsx.cfg?

I get good performance everywhere, especially in orbx regions, but not in JFK.

 

Hi E Buzz

 

Thanks for the questions. In the cfg I set wide view aspect to true, highmemfix=1, make sure you set a infinity mask that suits your system, change use buffer pools to =0, I also use direct X10 fixer, which needs to be run every time you add new scenery files. Terrain max autogen trees per cell=800, terrain max autogen buildings per cell=1500, lod-radias=4.500000. Also if possible use a external java FPS limiter instead of the FSX one, doing this you will see a 5-10fps gain under load. It is also important that once you have set your display settings in FSX don't change them as changing resets the cfg so any changes you made there will be gone. I run FSX on its own 2TB HHD ( I will change to SSD when they drop in price ) that is short stroked ( we call it short stacked ), my boot drive is a 120gb SSD. I also run a "bare bones" win7 OS on my FSX system. Before firing up FSX make sure that things like anti virus software etc. are not running in the background. These are simple I know, but I like to take the less is more approach. Also all systems are different so what works for one wont for another or could potentially be worse. I don't sacrifice stability for performance.

AMD 9590 5Ghz, Asus 990X Sabertooth, Asus 285 Strix, 8Gb Ram x2 RipJaws, Corsair Hydro H100, Corsair CM750M, 2TB Short Stroked HDD, Samsung 120Gb SSD for OS, x3 ViewSonic VX2370 LED Frameless Monitors. x1 Semi Understanding Partner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Done the JFK test as you asked, normally I use real world weather but as requested I did user defined weather, thunder storms and some broken cloud patterns further out. I did a taxi, take off, circuit over Manhattan then vectored back to the airfield and landed 31L as you stated, then completed a taxi to a gate. This time I used my Majestic Q400. Again all add-ons were active other than my real time weather add-on and of course my NZ ORBX packs. At the airfield I got 33fps and the fps only went up after departure. Approach was interesting as it briefly dropped for a few seconds to 29fps but was steady at 31fps and increased to 34fps on taxi back to gate.

As far as passmark goes that really has no bearing on how FSX performs with each CPU, its like me comparing my 9590 against a 4770 playing BF4 in which the i7 would perform better and stating that it means the i7 must be better for FSX, it absurd. Yes I agree a 5Ghz 4770 would probably perform better than a 4770. But would it out perform to the degree you would notice it without looking at the fps and if you could notice it does it out perform it to the degree that you are willing to pay more that double the money. If you are willing to do that to just chase 2 or 3fps then you have more money than you have sense. I agree with you the i7 is the better all round CPU, but when it comes to FSX its not, that's quite clear.

Its not about AMD vs Intel its about what gives the best simulation performance at the best price. Your statement about you should choose Intel if you can because it performs better in FSX is just plain wrong, and if someone was to take that advice without doing their own research in what CPU will perform best for them under their own individual system requirements be it a strictly FSX machine, a FSX and general home computer, or a gaming computer, they could be paying $300 or $400 dollars more for a CPU that simply wont be any better or probably worse if we are talking strictly about FSX.

If your Intel CPU was the same money as my AMD CPU and I was doing a FSX build, I'd still go with the AMD CPU because it just simply performs better for a FSX build than the Intel one, if they performed the same I'd go Intel simply because I prefer Intel in general. As I said its not about brand its about having the best FSX experience you can possibly have. If only FSX was simple to run well it would save a lot of head scratching and late nights of tweaking.

 

Darryl, im not the only one that assure FSX is better with Intel, Simulations experts like Nick N from simforums and a lot of users in every forums says Intels has better single thread perfomance, and thats what really impact a game/application perfomance. AMD is not very good in terms of single thread, it is good in multi-task operations(various programs operating at the same time), so if you have only FSX running at the same time , having a lot of cores wont improve anything, believe me, I know what Im talking about, as I said, I was an AMD FX user.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"-Please if you want the best perfomance dont purchase super scenery packages like FTX pacific northwest, those addons literrally would screw your computer"

 

I run every ORBX region and regularly fly out of airports such as FSDreamteam Vancouver and Taxi2Gate Seattle in planes like the PMDG NGX and Coolsky DC-9 and my FPS remains well above 30 with most of my settings cranked all the way to the right. I run FSX on a 4770k at 4.4 GHz and a GTX 780.

If anything, PNW is easier on FPS than default since it's way better optimized.

 

Outrage, of course, with your rig even the heaviest addons can be playable, but not every user like to overclock their processors so its recommended not to buy computer hungry addons, I have read comments saying that Pacific Northwest made their simulation an Slide show when they turned Autogen to the max, its only a recommendation, it deppends on your hardware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just plain wrong. In order for a i5k chip to equal even a locked i7 4790 at

3.6 ghz, it would have to be clocked to around 4.6-4.7 ghz. If clocked at 4.5 ghz,

it's CPU scores are going to be a slight bit less than the 4790 at nearly a ghz less

clock speed.

And in the case of the unlocked i7 4790k, if you clock it to 4.7 ghz, it will likely tear

the 4.7 ghz OC'ed i5 4690k a new you know what.. :rolleyes:

 

If there were no difference between the two, no one would buy i7's.. :(

 

BTW, I paid less for my i7 4790 than the usual going rate for the i5 4690k.

You have to be a prudent shopper these days, and look for the deals.

And my last puter was an AMD. It was a good machine being as it was cheap

to build. Good bang for the buck, and ran FSX quite well overall.

 

But the i7 4790 even locked runs FSX a LOT better. I'd actually need a bigger

font size for "LOT" to put it in the proper perspective. ;)

And I didn't pay much for this build compared to what many people spend.

And I've had no reason to scratch and tweak to get it to run right.

 

You are totally right dude, Intel clearly outperform AMD when it comes to gaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just plain wrong. In order for a i5k chip to equal even a locked i7 4790 at

3.6 ghz, it would have to be clocked to around 4.6-4.7 ghz. If clocked at 4.5 ghz,

it's CPU scores are going to be a slight bit less than the 4790 at nearly a ghz less

clock speed.

And in the case of the unlocked i7 4790k, if you clock it to 4.7 ghz, it will likely tear

the 4.7 ghz OC'ed i5 4690k a new you know what.. :rolleyes:

 

I totally agree with you, perhaps I was rather sloppy in my wording when comparing a i5 and i7, I was talking about on a FSX dedicated machine, it performs no other task. The performance difference is so small and so un-noticeable in FSX that it is hard to justify spending the extra money for little or no gain. If you can get a great deal on a i7 then that's fantastic and you should go for it. I am not advocating buying one over the other, again I was simply stating that if you are building a FSX dedicated machine that wont be doing anything else then performance of both CPUs are equal. I have bench tested both ( luckily my brother owns computer stores in Christchurch so I can go and play in his workshop at one of them ) in dedicated FSX systems.

AMD 9590 5Ghz, Asus 990X Sabertooth, Asus 285 Strix, 8Gb Ram x2 RipJaws, Corsair Hydro H100, Corsair CM750M, 2TB Short Stroked HDD, Samsung 120Gb SSD for OS, x3 ViewSonic VX2370 LED Frameless Monitors. x1 Semi Understanding Partner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are totally right dude, Intel clearly outperform AMD when it comes to gaming.

 

Again I totally agree when it comes to gaming, no question. I am talking about performance on a dedicated FSX machine, I don't know how much clearer I can make it, and I have said over and over again. As many people you can name that say Intel I can name as many experts who say AMD as far as FSX goes. Its a pointless argument, and again its missing the point completely.

AMD 9590 5Ghz, Asus 990X Sabertooth, Asus 285 Strix, 8Gb Ram x2 RipJaws, Corsair Hydro H100, Corsair CM750M, 2TB Short Stroked HDD, Samsung 120Gb SSD for OS, x3 ViewSonic VX2370 LED Frameless Monitors. x1 Semi Understanding Partner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...