Phil,I don't say that you need 4G of RAM for Vista 64 as such, it's more that if you are getting 4GB RAM you may as well get an OS that can see it. I reckon 3GB is sufficient for the 1G Vista OS overhead + 2G for apps to play with, but since RAM is so cheap nowadays, you may as well get 4G and be done with it.Re Accel + DX10, I really wish I could have found a tweak or driver update that fixes the 30% perf drop when enabled, but so far it has eluded me. I like the look of the DX10 preview, but IMO 30% drop is too much of a penalty to pay.Gary

I know that Tom says that SLI doesn't work with multi-monitors, but if you are running just the TH2G adaptor it is only seen as one monitor so it should still work in SLI. I'd say at that high a resolution SLI would be beneficial, but I am just purely speculating based on how many pixels are being thrown around despite FSX being mostly CPU bound - at some stage they've gotta push the video card hard!My Bad! Your right SLI should be able to be used in the case of TH2G, since it breaks the image up in it's interface past the graphic card. Making it appear as a single display to the system.

The following is a compilation of the main posts I have made in this thread, this time with persistent image links thanks to Tom tf51d :-):Standalone FSX PerformanceAfter running over 40 benchmark runs over the last few days on both Vista 64 and XP Pro with FSX RTM, SP1, SP2 DX9 and SP2 DX10, not to mention a dash of overclocking, widescreen, TH2G, selective CPU core use and different FSX settings, I have finally cobbled together the results as shown below.First up is the test config and legend for the results:Next is the test results themselves, limited to just the average FPS of the run (I have second by second blows of the full 5 minutes of each run and can draw up pretty graphs for any set of these runs if anyone wants them :The conclusions I have drawn from this effort are as follows (calculations not shown in the name of sanity):1. SP1 gives just over double the performance of RTM and SP2 adds another 10% with DX9 on Vista 642. SP2 DX10 is 25% slower than SP2 DX9, however when bloom is enabled, DX10 performs the same but DX9 loses 37% performance on Vista 643. Max sliders is unplayable in SP1, SP2 DX9 and SP2 DX10 at around 6 FPS average and mass blurries set in within 30 seconds on Vista 644. My SP1 optimum setting configuration goes from a 13% benefit to a 5% deficit between SP1 and SP2 on Vista 645. Enabling widescreen support causes a 9% performance drops with SP1 and only a 5% performance drop with SP2 on Vista 646. Using TH2G, which increases pixel output threefold, elicits a nearly 30% performance drop in SP1 but a lower 23% performance drop in SP2 on Vista 647. Using cores 0 and 1 out of all four cores incurs a 3% performance loss, however gives a 7% performance boost when cores 2 and 3 are used on Vista 648. A 50% CPU overclock translates to a 34% performance gain, which is an efficiency factor of 68%, on both OSs9. Running 1066MHz FSB versus 1600MHz FSB results in neglible performance difference (<0.5%) on Vista 6410. The highest recorded performance was 37.16 FPS average with SP2 DX9 Global High settings and the CPU overclocked to 3.6GHz and limiting CPU cores used to 2 and 3 on Vista 6411. XP Pro is 4% faster than Vista 64 with RTM12. Vista 64 is 4-6% faster than XP Pro with both SP1 and SP2, with CPU overclocking causing the highest difference13. The gains in XP Pro going from RTM through SP1 and SP2 are approx 10% less than with Vista 6414. Reducing FSX core use from 4 to 2 cores with XP Pro resulted in a 2% (cores 0&1) to 7% (cores 2&3) performance boostFinally, some general comments I have are:1. Image quality was very consistent between most runs, with the only noticable degradation being mild blurries when I did a single core run and major blurries during any max slider run2. FPS is only one aspect of the FSX game experience and should be balanced against visual quality for optimal fun factor.FSX + Addons PerformanceHaving spent the last few days loading up all my addons for FS9 and FSX, I finally got to use FSX for something other than benchmarking - ala an online flight on VATSIM. As I was cruising along however, I thought I might do some performance data captures of FSX + addons in action, just to see what a "real" load is on the sim in actual use.For background, the flight I am reporting on below is not my Seattle benchmark run, rather I am on a flight from CYYT (St Johns, Canada) to BGGH (Nuuk, Greenland) in a Lockheed Superconstellation. This is the third last leg (of about 280!) of an RTW heavy iron tour I am doing with Air Source, and I decided to hook up on VATSIM to do the flight (A connie really confuses ATC when they see it on their scope!). Location at the time was out over open water heading North to the YMH VOR, about 80nm out.In addition to FSX, I had the following addons running:ASX - for weather of course!FSCommander - moving map, flight planner and for monitoring online flight progress on VATSIMTrackIR - head controlled panningFSBuild2 - used to create the flight plan originally, but left openFSInn - connects me to VATSIMServerInfo - for monitoring online flight progress on VATSIMActiveAirSource - the online ACARS system we use at AirSourceResults of a 5 minute log of CPU time for each FSX-related application are graphed as follows:Note, the big spikes for both FSCommander and ServerInfo are when VATSIM data is redownloaded and updated on the screen.In summary, each of the applications averaged the following average CPU use (100% = 1 core fully utilised):FSX - 189%ASX - 7.6%FSCommander - 3.7%TrackIR - 2.4%FSBuild2 - 0.1%FSInn - 5.4%ServerInfo - 7.4%ActiveAirSource - 0.2%Total - 216%Translated, this mean that my system kept 2.2 cores on average entertained over this five minute window. Compare this to the FSXBench runs I did above, where they used about a 1.5 core average. The extra CPU use is not only from the addons themselves, but also FSX as it takes time to communicate with them (it alone goes up from 1.5 cores to 1.9 cores).So it would seem for this run at least, that two cores is just below optimal (note you normally wouldn't have FSCommander and ServerInfo both displaying VATSIM flight data, well unless you are me ;-)), and four cores is more than enough. Hey, Intel should think about putting out a triple core processor - the theory that three is best worked out quite well for the surfing industry at least FSX Hardware RecommendationsFrom my perspective and experience, the essence of a fast FSX system, in order of priority, is the following: CPU - two or more CPU cores and the fastest clock speed you can buy or otherwise achieve through overclocking. Intel reigns supreme in this arena at this time.CPU Cooler - if you are going to overclock, get at least one of the value aftermarket HSF combinations, like the Arctic Cooler Freezer5 Pro 7 that I use. After that, they can get very big and expensive for diminishing cooling returns.Motherboard - if you are going to overclock, get a brand name, known overclocking friendly motherboard. It doesn't need to be the Deluxe++ WiFi Limited Edition of a particular board series, as quite often the value versions of these allow just as good overclocking, just minus the bells and whistles that don't matter much to FSX performance (eg. RAID, Firewire). Newegg customer feedback comments are your friend here.Power Supply - you'll need at least 500W PSU and one of good quality. I'd much rather have only 500W of quality power than 1KW of ripply volts and amps from a dodgy brothers unit. 500W is sufficent for the base unit I describe here. FWIW, I use a 480W ANTEC with the rig I used in the tests above, with no issues at all.Case - Again, if overclocking, make sure that the case you get is well ventilated and can accommodate any huge aftermarket HSF you buy.RAM - 2GB for XP and 4GB for Vista (with a strong recommendation for Vista 64 to make full use of all 4GB). Memory speed and timings don't make a huge difference, just as long as whatever you buy run at your potential overclock speed. DDR2-800 at 5-5-5-18 timings is plenty good enough for what most want to do here.Video Card - either a 7900GT or 1950XT for DX9 only, or an 8800 GT for DX9 & DX10. Although video card performance does play a greater factor in FSX than any previous FS version, particularly if you want to crank AA/AF levels up beyond what in-game setting provide, having a fast CPU and enough RAM to feed it will do much more to bring up your low-end FPS with this title. No SLI or Crossfire, unless your house needs the extra heating :-lol, as it is pretty much entirely useless with FSX! And get a 512MB or greater version if you run a resolution over 1280x1024 or really like to push those AA/AF levels up to max at the video card driver level.Hard Drive - I know that some swear by RAID and Raptors, but in my experience it doesn't make a cracker of difference while FSX is chugging along, as long as your FS scenery directories are regularly defragged and you are running a 7200RPM unit. When considering hard drives for an FSX system, I think much more about capacity than performance.Sound Card - Any modern, name brand, even value, overclockers motherboard comes with a more than adequate for onboard sound capability for FSX performance consideration. Don't bother with an external sound card for FSX unless you really have a fine ear for the sound quality difference it offers over onboard.That pretty well covers the major system components. Of course if you play other games, especially First Person Shooter, then I'd consider upping the video card spec to 2 x 8800GT in SLI and say a 800W PSU to handle the extra load.Finally, here are some recommendations for FS-optimised rigs (minus monitor, mouse and keyboard) I put together a couple of weeks ago:Overclockers Performance System ~$1300 for 3.2-3.6GHz quad core DX10 power - http://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/wishli...tNumber=6548852Performance System ~$1150 for 3.0GHz dual core DX10 power - http://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/wishli...tNumber=6551312Value Overclockers System ~$600 for 3.2-3.4GHz dual core DX9 power - http://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/wishli...tNumber=6551492Gary

Keep up the good work! Posts like these deserve to be pinned at the top of the hareware forum. It is exactly this kind of information people need to make wise choices regarding MSFS and what hardware to purchase. However, this is the one area that has been significantly lacking in the past. I am surprised that no one has decided to go out on his own to create a dedicated website for this issue.RH

Hi Gary, well done on all of this.One question.I've tried before to put a (job scheduler) into my FSX cfg file, bit it never stays in it.I have a Intel Quad core 6700 cpu. Overclocked to 3.19ghz.Where does the affiniy mask actually go in the FSX.cfg file and why would my entry not be kept when I save it.What would you put in the FSX.cfg considering the cpu I have?Thanks Phil

Phil,I just use the following at the end of the FSX.CFG file:{JobScheduler}AffinityMask=14where {} are square brackets.After running and exiting FSX, it moves location within FSX.CFG to about a third of the way up, but it is definitely still there. Do a search in the FSX.CFG file for the word Mask and you should find it.I suggest you use the setting I use, as it seems to give the best performance and keeps core 0 spare for addons an OS tasks.Gary

Gary, I apologize for not getting back to you guys sooner.I really wanted to reformat and do some benchmarks, and I kept thinking I would be able to find the time. But work and family responsibilities have been keeping me too busy this month. I just don't have the time right now.

That's OK. These things happen to us all at some time or another :-)I was hoping however, that with over 10000 views of this post, that someone other than you, with a spanking new Penryn or Phenom system, would have run the benchmark and reported back here by now. It would be really good to know what sort of a leap this newest generation of systems gives the FS masses. It'll be at least a year before I upgrade to such a platform, and I'm sure everyone doesn't want to wait that long to find out the answer.So again, I plead to the new system purchaser masses - can someone run this benchmark on a Penryn / Phenom system and report back here.Gary

Thanks GaryShall do.I test to see if it remains in the cfg file after I have ran and exited FSXAS it is not there and I know I put it in there a few weeks ago and saved it.Anyway try again, as they say.CheersPhil

Very interesting article and findings. I have a dumb question Gary or Phil. If I buy a new Quad Core system pre-loaded with Vista Home Ed and an 8500GT card. I presume that this comes with DX10. Now if remove the rather pathetic 8500 and replace it with my trusty old 7950GT with 512MB of RAM will I be able to downgrade to DX9, this is because of the 30% reduction in performance as noted by Gary. If DX10 is going to affect FSX that badly then I'd much rather have DX9.

Hi Gary,My sig says all my future specs, but the 45nm processors have been delayed. So, is it worth waiting for them (3 months or so) or is it OK to just get a Q6600? Will a Q6600 last long in gaming? Is 45nm vs. 65nm and 12 MB of L2 cache vs. 8 MB worth it for FSX+Vista 64?Thanks,BoeingGuy

Has anyone downloaded and used this package? I would love to see a webpage with graphs, too bad they get deleted from here hehe

I did... instructions were very explicit how to use and I just copied and pasted my results from fraps into his (very nice) sample spreadsheet.The .cfg files used were the included Global High.cfg and Max.cfg (everything to the right). Fwiw, here's the result for my 2x285 Opteron system (4 threads @ 2.6GHz). You can see the nice boost going from RTM to SP1/SP2 and what a drag max sliders has on my system (am curious how to interpret the flat graph of max.ctg).I really liked using this benchmark to get idea where I was (in terms of fps) and then seeing how certain sliders impacted fps. I could make a slider adjustment, run the benchmark, then based on the graph decide if I wanted to keep the setting.Rob O.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/183027.jpg

Thanks for that.... yeah I had graphs too but avsim's servers don't host things for much more than a week, so they went bye bye....I averaged about 18FPS on global high, with my system, but I wasn't able to do a RTM vs SP2 comparison....I'm suprised by your results! That's a huge difference! My tests were all DX9 tooI will repost them so they stay. I wish we could get a huge site or document going with everyone's graphs.... I like that sorta thing hehe

BoingGuy,Sorry for the delayed reply, but I have spent the last month relocating from the USA back to Australia. Re whether you should wait or not is still an unresolved question, for me at least, as I have not seen the results of any benchmark runs of these new processors to compare to my Q6600 results. On paper though, the bigger cache, more efficiency at the same clock speed and greater overclocking potential of the 45nm over the 65nm processors means that the 45nm will definitely be faster in FSX. Whether the gain, whatever it turns out to be, is worth the additional cost of the new CPUs is entirely a personal decision.Gary