Past the CPU bottleneck ...

[Noel 4,484]

>There are too many operations going on in the background we do>not see and/or can not measure to place ---->any<---- perf>value on the frame counter number.I disagree with that analysis. Frame counter number below a certain value is the mother of all show stoppers. Once you get to acceptable frame rates then I would agree other variables trump frame rate since frame rate is no longer a pressing issue. Some set that at acceptable level at 15, or 20, or 30 or more. When you get below 15 it gets pretty dicey as you know. You have to give SOME credence to how many times an image is painted, and how motion is reflected in that. In frame counter rates of 100, sudden moves display as smooth motion. Not so in low FPS situations. There is fluidity which is clearly enhanced, barring stuttering behaviors, with higher frame rates I believe. 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]

you must have missed the post above yours... there is no "perf" value in that counterthere are only 2 things that counter will tell you and they are based on if playable frames are there or notneither tells you your system is better or worse than another in a linear format. That counter can drop to 10 because of a bad scenery package installed and lets forget addons.. it can also drop to 10 because you dont have your sliders set right for the hardware or something in the OS or background is affecting it I am not speaking to performance benchmarked against yourself, I am speaking to having that number compared to another persons system tell you anything of valueComparing to your own result depends on the type of frames and visual clarity/smoothness you are seeing and how it may change with a system tweak, hardware or a setting move as I posted aboveEDIT:LOL thread format... I meant this posthttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=43258&page=

[january 19]

Here's some ammunition to support the view that the GPU may be the limiting factor in performance- at least in FS9.My system is now in its 6th year- truly a Smithsonian relic- AMD XP2200 1.8GHz- 2GB RAM. But it very nicely runs triple synchronized views on 3 monitors via a GeForceFX 5200 AGP card and a same type PCI card. FS9 settings are not maxed out but are very comfortable near mid range. Autogen Off.Now some numbers- (same situation/settings for all)Single view on 1 monitor- 34-46 FPS -Average 40Triple views on 3 monitors- 18-22 FPS -Average 20In the second case, the pixel output of 3 monitors has tripled (300%) with only a 50% decrease in FPS. A nice tradeoff!!Clearly, multiple views has enabled the CPU to generate more output. Phrased another way, the CPU was handicapped by lack of GPU!In fact this holds true for only 2 monitors being driven by same GPU.Here my pixels double with only a 33% reduction in FPS.Conclusion? Expand your GPU capability and watch your CPU strut its stuff!! Alex Reid