FSX Dynamic Benchmark Run Results

[ryanbatc 13,029]

If you're not planning to overclock, I'd go for the E8500 or E8600, but you can easily get that Q6600 to 3.6 on air, with a decent cooler:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16835109125Go with Vista 64bit and 4GB of RAMAny P35/45 mobo works, or X38 if you want that side of moboshttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16813136053I'd go for a 9800GTX or 9800GT video card

[Noel 4,563]

Also DDR3 is a non-player.>it will provide No discernible performance increase. Plain ol'>DDR2-800 is the stuff to use with an O/C'd Q6600. Save some>dough. As it appears, any FPS increase is only based on the>O/C of a single core anyway. The other 3 (only) provide other>important functions. Now Sam, how can you keep saying this. Have you personally done the comparison? My fav comparison, which I have done myriad times, is taking off from KSFO 28L and watching how autogen pops into view, and how clear textures update to maximum resolution. There is def an improvement with the DDR3 at its XMP profile over the DDR2 overclocked and on the edge of failure. The Mushkin Ascent memory I have handles its X.M.P. profile without the slightest hint of instability, runs at 1T, 1600Mhz. This of course has little to do with fps, but as you say, does has something to do with other important functions, IMO.OTOH, your fav 8800GT recommendation still stands. I was hoping to go to 4870 or x2 version, but it seems these suckers just can't handle FSX adequately. The exact same, low noise EVGA 8800GT I bought now sells for a whopping . . . $114 on Newegg. It looks like I will be buying a 2nd one for the machine I am assembling for my brother, who will get my P5E/mushkin DDR2 machine. He will use FSX, but not like we do, just for simple VFR with default aircraft. I have advised him to go for the E8500, but he wants the E8600.

[Guest D17S]

Not all of us can afford a Sonoma '63 Cabernet or have the palate to appreciate the difference. This does Not insist that the '63, is not better than the Napa '67. However if pushed (and don't even think about it!) I would insist it is, but I'm from the Sonoma Valley! http://www.sonomavalley.com/. . . Point is that it takes a connoisseur to argue the significant additional expense is a justifiable measure. Maybe it is. One thing's for sure. It Certainly is to the connoisseur.

[Noel 4,563]

>Not all of us can afford a Sonoma '63 Cabernet or have the>palate to appreciate the difference. This does Not insist that>the '63, is not better than the Napa '67. However if pushed>(and don't even think about it!) I would insist it is, but I'm>from the Sonoma Valley! >>http://www.sonomavalley.com/>>. . . Point is that it takes a connoisseur to argue the>significant additional expense is a justifiable measure. Maybe>it is. One thing's for sure. It Certainly is to the>connoisseur. Well, it's not like people in this forum wouldn't consider a $500 video card to sqeeze a lil more out, if it only were possible!The nice DDR3-1600 I bought is about $320 for 2 x 2GB. Not too terribly prohibitive. I went there cuz I knew there was no way I would move to Nehalem, so I wanted memory that would compliment my QX. I think one can make the arguement for another $200 or so, you can get the better memory. Since going to the XMP profile (from my attempts to do better), I am getting everest latency scores now in the 46.7ns range, and I tell you, it does make a difference. BTW, the 177.92 driver is now clearly the best performer, and as a first since the 169.x driver is the first that would NOT cause a sound pop in FSX. So that is way cool! I think NickN's point way back that decent 1600 memory would not require bleeding edge timings is very correct. With the 800 DDR2's as I got to less than about 55ns I was on the edge of BSOD. This has yet to happen with the 1600 I have now.Are you from Sonoma? Where do you live now? I was just driving thru the wine country a few weekends ago. Such a nice area . . .QX9650 w/ Retail HSF|ASUS P5E3 Premium WiFi|4GB Muskin Ascent 7-6-6-18 1T DDR3-1600|EVGA 8800GT|Seagate SATA 2 x 2|Seagate Cheetah 15K.x|XP Pro SP2|Vista 64--maybe never to be installed

[Guest Nick_N]

Welcome to the club NoelDDR3 does make a difference if the right components are purchased.. and you don

[Noel 4,563]

Removal of the NB>loading dock is in my opinion going to go a long way for>better FSX results.Won't be too long before we will see just how much this plays out. I tell you tho Nick, I am using all the typical addons, and with the latest driver from nV I am getting remarkable performance, with dense autogen, everything else but water maxed to the right, including cloud draw distance to 110m, HD clouds, and so forth, and with the new, very complex and slightly finicky, but very nicely modeled Super MD-80 from Coolsky, I'm getting ultra smooth n sharp flights right on into KSAN without a hitch. I do use the unlimited setting on these larger terminal approaches, but wow, 34 frames n smooth, and this is with a complex airliner. Pretty darn cool. I can say FSX is now, without a doubt, a very good platform for commercial airline simulation. Haven't been back to FS9 for months. Tried, but didnt' like the looks of it any more. This runs way better than FS9 did with my old P4 3.5Ghz machine. I think THIS system has arrived quite nicely. And thank you, the DDR3 of decent (I opted for 2x2Gb modules) quality memory is nice not to have to overstress it to the point of near failure. Nick, I asked this several times and never got an answer that could guide me, with my P5E3 Prem where the heck should I be setting my NB voltage? I took it off AUTO, and moved it from its default 1.25v to 1.41, which is the highest setting before it jumps to yellow text, or somewhat risky. All has been ultra stable, but I don't want to fry my NB as I may have done on AUTO using my old P5E DDR2. I am running MCD read delay at 6 (instead of its default 7), and of course my FSB is at 400 instead of the default 333.At $114 for a brand new 8800GT, i'm holding pat. I don't feel good about the 4970's yet, just not doing well with FSX yet. I hope they can fix this soon, as I'll reconsider. Soon tho, I need to pick up another card for a 2nd build. I am assembling my old P5E for a new machine for my brother. I really wanted to go 4870 or x2 version, but it's just not holding up yet for FSX. And now with the new nV drivers, the 8800GT is truly no slouch.QX9650 w/ Retail HSF|ASUS P5E3 Premium WiFi|4GB Muskin Ascent 7-6-6-18 1T DDR3-1600|EVGA 8800GT|Seagate SATA 2 x 2|Seagate Cheetah 15K.x|XP Pro SP2|Vista 64--maybe never to be installed

[Guest Nick_N]

I'm sorry NoelI thought I answered that question some time ago. I answer so many questions all over the net many times I lose place.. LOLWith your quad 'tick' proc and 4GB the NB voltage of 1.4 is typical for stabilizing a clock if necessary. It can go higher however I would not push that much past 1.55 without special cooling for extended periods of time. Usually higher is needed for greater than 4GB and a high CPU clock but 1.4-1.5 (1.5-1.55 with good tower cooling) is perfectly safe. Watch the MB temp and if it starts going up with such voltage increases you know the NB is getting warmOf course its like anything else with clocking. If you do not need to run that 1.4v, don

[Noel 4,563]

Thanks. I have FSB Term voltage at 1.20. What I really don't know is exactly how the BIOS programmer intended to use the AUTO mode in these voltages. I had some conjecture that the reason my P5E failed was because I undervolted the NB by leaving it on AUTO. I think you told me previously you did not know for sure what AUTO did on my P5E bios. If AUTO = default, then great, AUTO is just that. But what I wonder is, if the system *needs* 1.41v for the NB, does AUTO NB voltage setting then take it . . . AUTOmatically up to that point? I think the theory that I browned my NB to the point of failure presupposes that AUTO = default, or 1.25v in this situation. See what you can poke around and find. I guess I'm fine as is then. What's cool is I only need 1.82v for my memory for the XMP profile which is as stated below, minus one on MCH Read Delay for added work, I guess!QX9650 w/ Retail HSF|ASUS P5E3 Premium WiFi|4GB Muskin Ascent 7-6-6-18 1T DDR3-1600|EVGA 8800GT|Seagate SATA 2 x 2|Seagate Cheetah 15K.x|XP Pro SP2|Vista 64--maybe never to be installed

[Guest Nick_N]

AUTO (typically) will read the onboard chip (like SPD on memory) and set that based on the value it should behoweverI have seen some BIOSes increase those AUTO values based on another setting.. but.. usually that only happens if AI Overclocking is enabledI have never, ever seen a board damaged by AUTO settings or undervoltingI suspect something else was at play thereThe board you are speaking of was known for the VR's being weak and burning up. They were hit and miss for stability. Asus upgraded that regulator system to an excellent design on the board you have now

[Guest D17S]

And welcome aboard to you too. "Removal of the NB loading dock . . . " Nice. Glad to see yur gettin' a better understating of how this stuff really works.

[Guest Nick_N]

>And welcome aboard to you too. >>"Removal of the NB loading dock . . . " >>Nice. Glad to see yur gettin' a better understating of how>this stuff really works.ThanksI would have called it high-speed point-to-point interconnects which will allow that system an instant 40% increase (to 90%) in true utilized bandwidth without clocking (hence the default drop in FSB to 133) from today

[Guest D17S]

They're just turning down the buss speed and then using more frequent cycles. There's no magic there. For instance, a giant pipe that can transfer 10 gallons per second (GPS) will provide the same performance as a smaller pipe . . . that can transfer 10 GPS (especially at a 5GPM load). "But oh my!" marketing proclaims to a lay mass, "Look at the MaSSive utilization increase you'll gain if your buy our stuff. That smaller pipe is exponentially more efficient!" So what.

[Noel 4,563]

>The 4870x2 is the 2nd choice if high AA is desired. I do see>that card coming of age with drivers however I think it will>not be till the next ATi release that they will finally get up>to speed with FSX and Nvidia

[Guest Nick_N]

>So what.So I guess Noel should go back to the DDR2 800 you continue to technically preach about because what he is seeing is all in his mind.. a fantasy, a dream.. its just the power of marketing suggestions. Hes really not seeing anything different or worth the system he is on.Some people do not have the same opinion you do Sam about what an excellent and satisfying FSX experience is. Some people run FSX with little or no autogen at all and with no AI traffic and are perfectly happy. In those cases they should follow your advice and not spend the money on things like better platforms, higher speed-lower latency memory, better access hard drives, etc.

[Guest Nick_N]

Are you on the GT 512 right now?its not a bad card Noel although the Ultra will skoot past it in heavy weather and a few other situations.I would wait a bit.. you have a PCIe 2.0 interface on that board so I would wait and see what comes down the pike in some weeks. They usually hold the better stuff till after xmas to try and get you to spend twice in that season LOLImage quality will be exactly the same with the Ultra compared to the GT and I do think it will run a bit louder with the factory HSF on it.Power is not a problem with the PCP&C unit you have, no worries thereSince you are not going from a -really- slow card to the Ultra I think I would wait and even if it costs a bit more get more for your money that will come from better tech. The 8800 768 cards are the FSX kings but their era is coming to an end.. waiting would probably be a better choice given their time as king is closing fast now.