AirTran1200 Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 OK, so I just installed my new CPU ( a quad-core AMD Phenom ii X4 975 at 3.6 Ghz ) and FSX runs the PMDG 737 wonderfully at about 60fps WITHOUT any scenery or traffic. Then I wanted to see if my CPU could run scenery. I installed FlyTampa's Tampa rebooted. I loaded it up with the 737NGX, very disappointed in the results. I got MAYBE 25fps. What I don't understand is, why do I see videos of people running lots of scenery and planes like the 737NGX with amazing fps when they are only running a quad-core at 3.3Ghz? Do you think Intels have something AMDs don't?:confused: Help would be appreciated. Turner Ramsey AMD Phenom ii X4 @3.6ghz MSI GTX750ti RAM: 8gb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Do you think Intels have something AMDs don't?:confused: Yep, Intel CPUs have much better single core performance compared to AMD models. And then many people overclock their Intel CPUs for more performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirTran1200 Posted December 7, 2014 Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 Dang, so even if I overclock to 4.0ghz it still won't make a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmann Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 My i7 4770 is clocked at 3.9 GHz and my frame rate often drops to the low 20's. The guys with the high frame rates are running overclocked i7's with video cards costing more than I spent on my whole computer! Mike Mann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atoryl Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 The number of variables that has to be taken into account when it comes to FSX performance is almost endless. Even systems with identical hardware specs can vary a great deal depending on setup, configuration, graphics settings, tweaks etc, etc. I have run FSX on both AMD and Intel systems and it is generally accepted that Intel is better at running single threaded apps like FSX. Running FSX at 60 FPS in every situation and scenario is simply not possible even with the best hardware. your goal should be smoothness, not frames. My system is locked at 30 FPS and will dip into the lower 20's on occasion in certain situations. Regards I7 3770K @ 4.5 Ghz, Asus Z77pro, NVIDIA 670FTW, 2 Samsung 840 pro 256 Gb, 8 Gb Corsair Vengeance 1866 Mhz . Corsair 850W modular Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 It will help a little bit, however going from 3.6 to 4 GHz isn't a big jump. Many Intel CPUs can easily be overclocked from 3.3 to over 4 GHz, and will still struggle with FSX. Also, many videos you see on YouTube have also been touched up after they were recorded. Your best bet is to adjust the settings to better match your system and the add-ons you are using. Unfortunately even the most powerful systems can't run the sim maxed out with the likes of PMDG and Fly Tampa installed at high frame rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAULCRAIG Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 If you are not suffering from stutters, I would not worry about the frame rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthportGuy Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 I tend to agree with what some have already said. No two systems behave exactly the same. It's hard to guarantee or recommend hardware that seems to work great for one guy but bad for another. You have to keep asking yourself, what does it take for me to have a satisfactory performance and is getting all of this hi res add-ons really worth the how taxing it will be on my computer's performance. So if you're landing , is it more important to you that your aircraft perform well, or is it more important that at 6000 ft on approach that you be able to see all of the individual leaves on trees on the surrounding terrain moving in the wind? Home Airport - Southport Airport, Southport, Manitoba, Canada| FSX/Acceleration | MSI GT70 Laptop | Windows 8.1 -64bit | Intel ® Core i7-3630 QM | CPU@ 2.4GHZ (cores can dynamically overclock to up to 3.2 GHz (920XM)) | Ram 12GB | NVIDIA® GeForce GTX 670M discrete graphics card (with GDDR5 3GB VRAM) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Vodka Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I have an overclocked 4.2ghx i7. ATi crossfire gfx cards etc etc fsx all on SSD £1500 plus worth of hardware running FSx. i lock down at 30fps (anything above that and your wasting CPU power!!) basically your fps should be locked to half your refresh rate. Mine is 60hz so i set 30fps. even if it should 120fps plus you won't get it as my refresh rate is 60hz!!! so forget this nonsense about running higher fps. I run Orbx vector / global. orbs Eu plus there scenery. REX OD. . in a carenado caravan I'm hitting 30fps with lows of 20fps around built up areas with Ai traffic. Heathrow etc. The carenado phenom is simply a frame killer so only purchase if you have a decent kit Also absolute must is tweaking you cfg file. .affinity mask, buffer pools etc etc. theres a few tweak guides out there. before i tweaked the cfg files i was getting numerous Ctds and 14fps at best. . . Im still working on correct setting for Afiinity mask. presently i have 84 set on a Quad core with Hyperthreading.. I've tried 14 and 255 also. . perhaps someone can clarify what i should be running? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double J Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrencebell Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I suggest you try FSX Fiber Accelerator. There's a free demo out there. It made a huge difference to my system (i5 650 at 3.7ghz). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Vodka Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 ill leave it at 84 as i sort of educated guessed. .cheers for the reimbursement there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W2DR Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 HT on = 84 HT off = 14 See http://www.gatwick-fsg.org.uk/affinitymask.aspx?SubMenuItem=hardware Doug Intel 10700K @ 5.0 Ghz, Asus Maxumus XII Hero MB, Noctua NH-U12A Cooler, Corsair Vengence Pro 32GB 3200Mhz, Geforce RTX 2060 Super GPU, Cooler Master HAF 932 Tower, Thermaltake 1000W Toughpower PSU, Windows 10 Professional 64-Bit, and other good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Also, many videos you see on YouTube have also been touched up after they were recorded. Wow you can say that again loki! The old saw about "numbers don't lie, but liers often use numbers" truly applies with frame rate claims! If your operation works smoothly without jitters, that's a plenty fast frame rate. If not backing off the sliders, overclocking, etc. can all help. Or you may want to do some system upgrades. But don't do it to reach some frame rate holy grail. Remember. It's not frame rate you're shooting for. It is satisfying simming! Don't get lost in theoretical performance claims. Being an old chopper guy I usually fly low and slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atoryl Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Again, as others have stated, 30 FPS is visually indistinguishable from 60 or 100 FPS. Resist the urge, lock it at 1/2 your monitor's refresh rate whatever that is (most are set at 60 frames/s) and enjoy the sim. If able to stay near that target FPS in all scenarios, great. Regards I7 3770K @ 4.5 Ghz, Asus Z77pro, NVIDIA 670FTW, 2 Samsung 840 pro 256 Gb, 8 Gb Corsair Vengeance 1866 Mhz . Corsair 850W modular Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.