All you want to know about fsx performance, simplified!

[Auza]

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:

 

Ok E-Buzz, lets talk about addons/perfomance, there are three simples rules when it comes to addons:

 

1-Developer: -A Rockie developer that doesnt know about fsx rendering engine wont know how to tune the addon correctly and perfomance can be very bad.

 

-Expert Scenery Developers use an advanced technique called "LOD"(Level of detail), so they take care not only in Addon codification, they manage textures resolution and number of objects with the objective of not losing FPS compared to the default scenary, a good example is FSDREAMTEAM.

 

-Beware of products that comes with 4096 resolution and 32 bit compression, this doesnt affect very much FPS if you have a good machine, but it will force your Hard drive to download heavier data so your smoothness can be affected.

 

2-The user:

What Nick said in his bible is that buying addons with birds, animated people or full gas stations was a total waste of resources, it has nothing to do with realistic plane simulation, remember that a simulator is made to practice, not to look landscapes, well, its the user decision, everyone is free of buying what their want.

 

3-The obvious: Simple rule, the more the texture quality, the more the effects and the the more 3d objects, the less the perfomance, thats why I recommended not to buy exagerated addons like Derzeweicki Desings New york city X, It will destroyyy the majority of Pcs.

[MBKHOU]

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".

 

The AMD 9590 runs pretty good. It's basically equal to the i7 4790 as far

as CPU scores. So no slouch, although it's using more cores and draws a

good bit more power than the i7. And the list prices on the 9590 are lower

than the list for the i7 4790/4790k. But I didn't pay list, and got the i7 4790

for lower than the AMD 9590 usually sells for. So I think I came out alright.. :cool:

I got the i7 4790 in a bundle deal for $198. Right now, the same store is listing the

AMD 9590 for $234. Of course the regular price for the i7 4790 is currently $309, but

like I say, you gotta be a price weasel when shopping for this stuff and wait for the

deals.. lol :D

They had a 4790k deal not long after I bought the 4790, but it was only the chip

and MB. My bundle, I got the chip, MB, 850w PS, and a H2O 1250 water cooler, which I

haven't even needed to use yet. I may sell it..

I got a good deal for all those parts. IE: I think I ended up paying $37 or so for the

H2O 1250 as an example..

And I see good AMD deals as well. That's how I got my last AMD puter.. Paid $115

for the Phenom IIx4 CPU and MB. Can't hardly beat that with a stick being as it ran FSX

pretty well.

[Auza]

The AMD 9590 runs pretty good. It's basically equal to the i7 4790 as far

as CPU scores. So no slouch, although it's using more cores and draws a

good bit more power than the i7. And the list prices on the 9590 are lower

than the list for the i7 4790/4790k. But I didn't pay list, and got the i7 4790

for lower than the AMD 9590 usually sells for. So I think I came out alright.. :cool:

I got the i7 4790 in a bundle deal for $198. Right now, the same store is listing the

AMD 9590 for $234. Of course the regular price for the i7 4790 is currently $309, but

like I say, you gotta be a price weasel when shopping for this stuff and wait for the

deals.. lol :D

They had a 4790k deal not long after I bought the 4790, but it was only the chip

and MB. My bundle, I got the chip, MB, 850w PS, and a H2O 1250 water cooler, which I

haven't even needed to use yet. I may sell it..

I got a good deal for all those parts. IE: I think I ended up paying $37 or so for the

H2O 1250 as an example..

And I see good AMD deals as well. That's how I got my last AMD puter.. Paid $115

for the Phenom IIx4 CPU and MB. Can't hardly beat that with a stick being as it ran FSX

pretty well.

 

Dude, the typical cpu benchmarks test the processor using all the cores, obviously the AMD FX 9590 using all its cores in an special test would demostrate a lot of power, but when it comes to fsx its harddd to see that a processor use more than 2, same rule to X plane and general gaming. http://www.notebookcheck.net/fileadmin/Notebooks/Sonstiges/Games/X-Plane_10/xplane10_cpu.png,

see that link, you will see and FX 8350 with 3 cores activated has the same FPS that with 8 cores, and that is considering X plane 10 is better in multithreading, then you will see what im talking about.

[darryl737]

Dude, the typical cpu benchmarks test the processor using all the cores, obviously the AMD FX 9590 using all its cores in an special test would demostrate a lot of power, but when it comes to fsx its harddd to see that a processor use more than 2, same rule to X plane and general gaming. http://www.notebookcheck.net/fileadmin/Notebooks/Sonstiges/Games/X-Plane_10/xplane10_cpu.png,

see that link, you will see and FX 8350 with 3 cores activated has the same FPS that with 8 cores, and that is considering X plane 10 is better in multithreading, then you will see what im talking about.

 

Again what has that test got to do with FSX and how a CPU performs within FSX. X plane and FSX use the CPU in totally different ways. Totally irrelevant once again.

[Auza]

Again what has that test got to do with FSX and how a CPU performs within FSX. X plane and FSX use the CPU in totally different ways. Totally irrelevant once again.

 

3d applications/ games works in a similar way, these take the processor power per clock as a priority, not number of cores, yeah Fsx works with some differences, it has a less efficent DX9 engine, but the way it works its the same than others aplications and games, it focus on single thread perfomance, AMD committed a mistake, they focused on the number of cores, not the quality of them, "Nine moms cant have a baby in one month", sames happens with the perfomance of one apliccation, some task can be distributed in various cores, but the basic rendering is handled by one core. In case of FSX, only autogen, weather and Traffic is handled by other cores, the rest depends on first core(or core 2 if you change affinity mask).

[mjrhealth]

After owning AMD for years and finalyy having to give up on lack of alternatives, I went to Intell. My 4770K stcok outperformed my old 6800 at 4.7Gig with FSX. Stil lwaiting for AMD to get there act together not holding my breath.

[maximus92]

Alright here we go. The AMD v Intel argument, when it pertains to FSX, is moot. No one outperforms the other with their modern offerings. SSD's do not increase performance, at all, end of story. It does increase load times, which is often mistakenly credited as a performance boost. People still report blurries, jaggies, popping, and tearing scenery, and so on, even with a SSD.

 

OP advised to buy an high cap SSD for Windows and FSX. You should never do this. Windows should reside on it's own lower cap SSD. FSX, optimally, should exist on it's own HDD or SSD. However, it could exist with other games on said HDD or SSD.

 

The only tweak you need for the config file is the "HighMemFix." Other tweaks are either not viable or are on a per user basis. The "AffinityMask" tweak does not do anything in helping improve performance because of the limitations within FSX itself, especially with modern CPUs. Even the aforementioned NickN has spoke out against using that tweak, among others.

 

Remember, no one is optimizing their drivers for FSX, and haven't for the longest time, and what you get performance wise is all you're gonna get. Bottom line, if you're averaging 30 fps out of FSX, then you're doing good. Expect drops into the 20's or even the teens, don't expect any more than that.

[Rupert]

Interesting thread. Very little of value, but interesting anyway.

 

Intel versus AMD. Isn't that the same as the Mustang versus Camaro versus Cuda discussions, or Tr versus MG versus Healey arguments auto enthusiasts used to have? Yes, people used to be as interested in how a car actually drove and rode as the newer generations seem to be about its' infotainment system.

 

We can all "cherry pick" numbers and reviews that favor the product we favor. Let's get back to what, if anything actually improves our FSX or FSXS experiences.

[E-Buzz]

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.

 

Daryl737, Thanks for sharing your FSX.cfg settings. I believe the jury may still be out (?) on whether to use an external limiter - of course, depending on who you read. :confused:

Which limiter do you use? I'd like to try it.

Thanks,

 

E-Buzz :pilot:

[Auza]

Alright here we go. The AMD v Intel argument, when it pertains to FSX, is moot. No one outperforms the other with their modern offerings. SSD's do not increase performance, at all, end of story. It does increase load times, which is often mistakenly credited as a performance boost. People still report blurries, jaggies, popping, and tearing scenery, and so on, even with a SSD.

 

OP advised to buy an high cap SSD for Windows and FSX. You should never do this. Windows should reside on it's own lower cap SSD. FSX, optimally, should exist on it's own HDD or SSD. However, it could exist with other games on said HDD or SSD.

 

The only tweak you need for the config file is the "HighMemFix." Other tweaks are either not viable or are on a per user basis. The "AffinityMask" tweak does not do anything in helping improve performance because of the limitations within FSX itself, especially with modern CPUs. Even the aforementioned NickN has spoke out against using that tweak, among others.

 

Remember, no one is optimizing their drivers for FSX, and haven't for the longest time, and what you get performance wise is all you're gonna get. Bottom line, if you're averaging 30 fps out of FSX, then you're doing good. Expect drops into the 20's or even the teens, don't expect any more than that.

 

The reason FSX Still lags even on best computers is due to some codification errors, theres no way we can fix that, but the better the machine, the less the stuttering, some users like David McClean in youtube said that FSX were butter smooth in his rig,

yeah you can still seeing some perfomance bugs, but it doesnt mean its not worth to purchasing a high end PC.

[darryl737]

Daryl737, Thanks for sharing your FSX.cfg settings. I believe the jury may still be out (?) on whether to use an external limiter - of course, depending on who you read. :confused:

Which limiter do you use? I'd like to try it.

 

Absolutely the jury is still out, I must say I have had good and bad experiences with limiters, it really depends on your rig, NVidia inspector is the one that I use and the one I have seen the best results from. Again though its one of those things that will or wont work for a individual system.

I always stay well clear of any of the "booster" products that you can purchase for FSX, they play around with your configs and change scenery directories to the point that if you want to run FSX without it anymore because of lack of performance gain you cant because of the changes it has made to files, they can be a real nightmare to the point that if you want to get back to what you had prior to having it installed you are left with little option but to do a clean install of FSX.

It is a real minefield out there when you read up on possible performance tweaks and so confusing, and again its very subjective and what works for one may not work for another, and I have fixed so many rigs that people have tweaked literally to death. I always have the philosophy of "less is more".

Darryl

[E-Buzz]

Interesting thread. Very little of value, but interesting anyway.

 

Intel versus AMD. Isn't that the same as the Mustang versus Camaro versus Cuda discussions, or Tr versus MG versus Healey arguments auto enthusiasts used to have? Yes, people used to be as interested in how a car actually drove and rode as the newer generations seem to be about its' infotainment system.

 

We can all "cherry pick" numbers and reviews that favor the product we favor. Let's get back to what, if anything actually improves our FSX or FSXS experiences.

 

Hi Rupert,

Yes, it seems that is how these things go - people are very passionate about how they were able to get FSX to run to their liking and like to share how.

 

It can be all very subjective - for example, I'll take the 'Cuda! :cool:

 

My (amateur) take is that "bare-bones" FSX will probably run great on most modern AMD or Intel CPUs with a decent clockspeed (no, I won't give a gHz number, but obviously the higher the better :D). I had an AMD Phenom ii x6 1035 O/C to 3.5 and now currently have an i5 4690K O/C to 4.7, and with the same old 6950 vid card and ram, both performed similarly in FSX with no addons and locked at 30fps.

Addons make all the difference and probably dictate what hardware you need more so than plain vanilla FSX.

 

The question now, for me anyway, is how to get the best eye-candy running at reasonable frame rates/smoothness?

 

I have a crap-load of addons and I bought them in order to enhance the heck out of my FSX experience. FSX is my escape from the real world but, I'd like that escape to be as a convincing as possible "alternate reality," and I'd like to be as informed as possible as how to get there.

For example, when I had the Phenom, if I fly with all my scenery addons and don't use Trackir and EZCA, FSX appears very smooth and movie-like even if if FPS drops to 15-20. Doing the same thing with Trackir and EZCA, well, 15-20 FPS suddenly isn't so smooth when panning your view around...

It would seem easy to say, "Hey, then don't use Trackir and EZCA!" but the point is that the FSX experience is degraded somewhat without them. This is what caused me to "upgrade" my CPU.

I could say the same about any orbx region or airport, but once you fly into or out of one from/to any default area or airport... Let's just say it's very hard to go back (for me). I LIKE the wavy grass, the people-flow, the birds flying in front of my windscreen when landing... :cool:

 

I believe that auza had good intentions when starting this thread. For newcomers to FSX (and now that the FSXSE is out introducing many more potential simmers to our hobby) this would be a good place to start - again for a vanilla install and expectations. And, that is also a good thing - if more and more newcomers buy FSXSE and get hooked, and then start down the slippery path that I stumbled upon, more simmers/users may demand more than stock FSX scenery/addons/etc. And as we all know, more users = more $$$ = an interest in development of a much more modern flight sim = more $$$.

I believe FSX was ahead of it's time and the open distribution of code was a smart move and really what has kept it alive. Probably why high-quality addons are still being actively developed, and pushing the FSX engine past it's intended use (OOM's anyone?).

Imagine if it was originally developed in 64bit...

I know people say that the FSX heir is P3D - I hope that is true, and I also hope that they can work on relaxing that licensing restriction to include entertainment.

 

OK, time to step off my soapbox (and hide from the stones that might be thrown my way).

 

E-Buzz :pilot:

[E-Buzz]

Hi Daryl737,

Unfortunately I run an AMD vid card, so no Nvidia inspector for me. But maybe in the future if/when I upgrade again, I'll consider an Nvidia card (I read somewhere that Nvidia is the preferred GPU for FSX) but I'm unsure I'll see a performance gain as my vid card is only running at 35% load in FSX. Also, I play other vid games and my current card does well.

I've been curious about the "booster" products but never bought one, although I did try the "fiber" thingy demo with my Phenom CPU - kept frames up, but at the expense of my eye-candy - not what I was looking for, but sorta did what it claimed.

Thanks again for the tips!

 

E-Buzz :pilot:

[darryl737]

Sorry E-Buzz I had it in my head you had a NVidia GPU, with my AMD rig I use RadeonPro.

 

Oh just remembered its Annber with the NVidia:rolleyes:

[Auza]

Hi Rupert,

Yes, it seems that is how these things go - people are very passionate about how they were able to get FSX to run to their liking and like to share how.

 

It can be all very subjective - for example, I'll take the 'Cuda! :cool:

 

My (amateur) take is that "bare-bones" FSX will probably run great on most modern AMD or Intel CPUs with a decent clockspeed (no, I won't give a gHz number, but obviously the higher the better :D). I had an AMD Phenom ii x6 1035 O/C to 3.5 and now currently have an i5 4690K O/C to 4.7, and with the same old 6950 vid card and ram, both performed similarly in FSX with no addons and locked at 30fps.

Addons make all the difference and probably dictate what hardware you need more so than plain vanilla FSX.

 

The question now, for me anyway, is how to get the best eye-candy running at reasonable frame rates/smoothness?

 

I have a crap-load of addons and I bought them in order to enhance the heck out of my FSX experience. FSX is my escape from the real world but, I'd like that escape to be as a convincing as possible "alternate reality," and I'd like to be as informed as possible as how to get there.

For example, when I had the Phenom, if I fly with all my scenery addons and don't use Trackir and EZCA, FSX appears very smooth and movie-like even if if FPS drops to 15-20. Doing the same thing with Trackir and EZCA, well, 15-20 FPS suddenly isn't so smooth when panning your view around...

It would seem easy to say, "Hey, then don't use Trackir and EZCA!" but the point is that the FSX experience is degraded somewhat without them. This is what caused me to "upgrade" my CPU.

I could say the same about any orbx region or airport, but once you fly into or out of one from/to any default area or airport... Let's just say it's very hard to go back (for me). I LIKE the wavy grass, the people-flow, the birds flying in front of my windscreen when landing... :cool:

 

I believe that auza had good intentions when starting this thread. For newcomers to FSX (and now that the FSXSE is out introducing many more potential simmers to our hobby) this would be a good place to start - again for a vanilla install and expectations. And, that is also a good thing - if more and more newcomers buy FSXSE and get hooked, and then start down the slippery path that I stumbled upon, more simmers/users may demand more than stock FSX scenery/addons/etc. And as we all know, more users = more $$$ = an interest in development of a much more modern flight sim = more $$$.

I believe FSX was ahead of it's time and the open distribution of code was a smart move and really what has kept it alive. Probably why high-quality addons are still being actively developed, and pushing the FSX engine past it's intended use (OOM's anyone?).

Imagine if it was originally developed in 64bit...

I know people say that the FSX heir is P3D - I hope that is true, and I also hope that they can work on relaxing that licensing restriction to include entertainment.

 

OK, time to step off my soapbox (and hide from the stones that might be thrown my way).

 

E-Buzz :pilot:

 

thanks for you E-Buzz, Im happy to know some people really understand the aspects of this thread and why I give that tips for FSX pc builders, I will say it a lot of times if required, Intel outperforms AMD.

 

About 64 bit applications, they only provide best memmory support, ram and vram so, that wouldnt really a creat a best performer simulation.

[Auza]

Hi Daryl737,

Unfortunately I run an AMD vid card, so no Nvidia inspector for me. But maybe in the future if/when I upgrade again, I'll consider an Nvidia card (I read somewhere that Nvidia is the preferred GPU for FSX) but I'm unsure I'll see a performance gain as my vid card is only running at 35% load in FSX. Also, I play other vid games and my current card does well.

I've been curious about the "booster" products but never bought one, although I did try the "fiber" thingy demo with my Phenom CPU - kept frames up, but at the expense of my eye-candy - not what I was looking for, but sorta did what it claimed.

Thanks again for the tips!

 

E-Buzz :pilot:

 

E-Buzz, Remeber, if you are not making a full system upgrade, only upgrade the subsystem with more load, it can be GPU or CPU.

[E-Buzz]

Hi Auza,

Thanks for the advice. ;)

I did a recent (a few months ago) motherboard/CPU upgrade (Asus Maximus VII Gene/Intel i5 4960K) because of the reason you stated - my old CPU (AMD Phenom ii x6 1035t) was running at 100% load during FSX and FPS/smoothness wasn't consistent, but the old vid card's (AMD 6950 2gb) load was nowhere near max even when running in DX10 Preview and BP=0 (still isn't with the new CPU).

So, at this point, the only real upgrade I could do would be the top-of-the-line i7 5960X (or something close to that) but for around $1000, I don't believe the price-per-performance ratio is worth it for FSX.

Not that I could afford it anyway...

And unless there is one true video card currently out there that can make a huge difference in FSX FPS/smoothness with my CPU and all my addons, as compared to my 6950, I'd consider putting some $ aside to get it.

In the meantime, I might pursue more overclocking methods and techniques for my current CPU as the general consensus is that CPU speed is the real "Holy Grail" with FSX, even if it is "multi-core aware."

I was easily able to get my CPU to 4.7 (24/7 stable) on the first try just using AI Suite and an inexpensive Corsair H55 water cooler, which seems to be the norm overclock with this CPU. Going much higher (and stable) will be a challenge...

But I digress, as I'm very happy with my current performance - for example, I get 40-60 FPS with smooth head-tracking (locked at 60 with FSX limiter) in all my orbx regions/airports with a Carenado Cessna Centurion. :cool:

 

Daryl737 - No worries - with all the contributions to this thread, it easy to forget who has what hardware :confused:

 

Sorry all, I feel I've highjacked this thread... :o

E-Buzz :pilot:

[MBKHOU]

So, at this point, the only real upgrade I could do would be the top-of-the-line i7 5960X (or something close to that) but for around $1000, I don't believe the price-per-performance ratio is worth it for FSX.

 

Wouldn't be worth it as far as FSX. The clock is usually lower on the 6 and 8 core

chips, so the single thread performance is lower than the quad cores which are

usually clocked higher. With the haswell CPU's, clock speed is pretty much the one

thing that defines the differences between the various chips.

I don't have the CPU scores for the 5960x, but I have them for the 5820k.

In the bench scores, my 4790 gets whacked by the 6 core CPU in every test that

uses multi threads. But... the 4790 at 3.6 ghz beats the 5820k at 3.3 ghz at single

thread. Being as I believe the i7's generally being clocked the highest are probably

the 4790k's, that should be the best chip for FSX among the i7's.

Of course, at the usual multi thread stuff, the 6 and 8 core chips will eat the 4 core

chips for lunch.

But, this doesn't apply to FSX, which does the bulk of it's work on a single thread,

and just uses the others for quick loads. That's the reason why the increase from

4 threads to 8 threads is very small. There is a slight increase, but it's quite tiny

in the overall scheme of things.

Single thread performance rules the day in the world of FSX. If you have an i5

clocked to 4.7 ghz, it's not going to be a slouch at single thread by any stretch.

It should be about as good as my 4790 at 3.8 ghz.. I think anyway. You should be

good to go as is. Or at least close enough to make buying a new CPU a waste of $$$

at this time.

[E-Buzz]

Hi MBKHOU,

Thanks for the response - I was starting to doubt my choice with the i5. As in, "Dang it! Maybe I should've ponied up the extra cash for the i7..." ;)

Again, I'm very, very happy with my i5's FSX performance. But, I always gotta push things.... What if I were able to overclock the i7 to 4.7? :D

Chasing the dragon...

 

Thanks again,

 

E-Buzz :pilot:

[darryl737]

Hi MBKHOU,

Thanks for the response - I was starting to doubt my choice with the i5. As in, "Dang it! Maybe I should've ponied up the extra cash for the i7..." ;)

Again, I'm very, very happy with my i5's FSX performance. But, I always gotta push things.... What if I were able to overclock the i7 to 4.7? :D

Chasing the dragon

 

E-Buzz, its easy to fall in to that trap of chasing more performance no matter how small the gains. As far as FSX goes a overclocked i5 is a great choice when you break it down to what you are going to gain vs cost difference of a i7.

My personal opinion is that if FSX is your main weapon of choice on your rig and you don't do a lot of video editing or photoshop type stuff on your rig then the cost difference between the i5 and the i7 vs what gains in performance if any you might gain with a i7 just doesn't make a lot of sense for the extra you end up paying.

 

Darryl

[Auza]

Hi MBKHOU,

Thanks for the response - I was starting to doubt my choice with the i5. As in, "Dang it! Maybe I should've ponied up the extra cash for the i7..." ;)

Again, I'm very, very happy with my i5's FSX performance. But, I always gotta push things.... What if I were able to overclock the i7 to 4.7? :D

Chasing the dragon...

 

Thanks again,

 

E-Buzz :pilot:

 

here E-Buzz, I found a good FSX perfomance reference, http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/focus/cpu2013/dostepne/def/fsx_1920.png.

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2013/haswell/wykresy/fsx_1920.png

There is a test made to Vanilla fsx, no teawks, made in Poland, why I know there are no tweaks?, because for example only by setting Bufferpools=0 the FPS would be greater on those test, I know because I have an i7 3770k and if I set Bufferpools=0 I get moreee FPS, but it cause stability problems.

[darryl737]

here E-Buzz, I found a good FSX perfomance reference

 

I have seen these before, these were done on a virtual machine, not a actual machine with actual hardware or software, while being a good guide they don't reflect reality.

I would of thought that was clear to you being you seem to get not great performance out of your machine compared to others and compared to what those links portray you should get.

[Auza]

I have seen these before, these were done on a virtual machine, not a actual machine with actual hardware or software, while being a good guide they don't reflect reality.

I would of thought that was clear to you being you seem to get not great performance out of your machine compared to others and compared to what those links portray you should get.

 

Hi Darryl, what do you mean with virtual?, Pclab is an old group dedicated to measure different hardware parts perfomance, as they stated here http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2014/devil/charts/def/fsx_1920n.png, all cpu test were done with gtx 780 ti, so I dont know what you mean with virtual.

[MBKHOU]

Hi MBKHOU,

Thanks for the response - I was starting to doubt my choice with the i5. As in, "Dang it! Maybe I should've ponied up the extra cash for the i7..." ;)

Again, I'm very, very happy with my i5's FSX performance. But, I always gotta push things.... What if I were able to overclock the i7 to 4.7? :D

Chasing the dragon...

 

Thanks again,

 

E-Buzz :pilot:

 

I wish I could have got the 4790k, but didn't pan out. They wouldn't let me

swap with that particular deal. But I might have well gone with an i5 if I hadn't

got the deal on the 4790. Almost all of my previous builds were using lower end

chips clocked up to get close to the top end. My last AMD box was a black box

CPU and was unlocked.

I guess my only consolation about not getting the k chip is I could use one with

my present MB and all, if I were to stumble across one in the future for a good

price. But for now, I'm good with the regular 4790. I'm about to my limit for what

I want to pay for puter stuff right now.. Heck, I had to buy yet another 2 TB HD

yesterday.. My brand new WD in the new puter started getting flaky. I was messing

around with something, and I got a "HD not read" error from Win 7. It didn't crash or

anything. Just gave the error from something it was trying to read. So I checked the

drive with the diag, and at first was showing ok.

But then I checked again later, and a "sector pending" error had popped up for one

sector, and I was showing a few raw read errors.

But at that point, everything seemed normal otherwise. Then I did a full chkdsk with

"fix", and it came up clean with no file or disk errors.. Weird..

But after that, I was still getting a raw read error now and then according to the diag..

So I bought another new drive yesterday, and cloned it all over. So far everything

seems normal.

 

I've already got a RMA# for the other drive, and am sending it in for a new one.

When I get the other one back, I'll clone it too, and have two C drives in case

mayhem strikes. I was planning on doing that anyway, but the disk mayhem sped

up my sked for that. :mad:

[E-Buzz]

MBKHOU,

Good job on the preemptive strike and swapping out the HDD before disaster struck! I guess it's better to spend a little money now while the problem is still small rather than...you know. ;)

 

daryl737,

Yes, FSX is the main reason for the choices I've made when building the current rig. I do play other games and sometimes do actual "work" (mostly Word documents), but don't do any video editing nor Photoshop stuff. Like I said, I'm very happy with my current rig and will explore the CPU's overclocking potential a bit further... Although I've read somewhere that unless you're going to use liquid nitrogen, getting much past 5gHz (AND STABLE) is very difficult.

 

Azua,

Thanks for the references - gives me a decent idea of relative performance differences between the various CPUs out there when running a vanilla FSX install.

As for the 64 bit stuff - I'm not a software programmer or anything like that but I was wondering: If FSX was somehow miraculously transformed into a 64 bit program, would that do anything to alleviate the 4Gb VAS limit thereby eliminating the dreaded "OOM" errors we sometimes get when flying for long periods of time, and into and out of complex addon scenery/aircraft? I understand X-Plane 10 is 64 bit (I don't have it and I don't know anything about it, really), so do those users run into OOMs when using complex addons? I know X-Plane and FSX are completely different programs, so the comparison may not be valid.

I usually do not encounter OOMs anymore (very rarely - the only time I get that now is when in the Aerosoft F14 at FSDT's KIAH airport, and really only when the weather is bad via ASN) after switching to DX10 preview - I only fly in that mode exclusively now. The moving cockpit shadows are great and really adds to the realism! :cool: My only "gripe" about DX10 is that AA doesn't seem to work as well for me as compared to DX9, even when I have all AA/image quality settings set as high as possible or in my experimentation with different settings in the CCC...

 

Thanks again all and happy flying!

 

E-Buzz :pilot: