Why would you turn off filtering to test the GPU or ANY diff with O/C the GPU?It simple and was already pointed out to "Bottleneck the GPU" simply use all the shader effects, use Bloom, use all shadows (include terrain) us full water or at least high, use highres and high filtering.Why on earth would youexpect to see the difference in O/C the GPU while running a low res and no filtering? that would be for taking the GPU out of the mix.You have to turn off filtering in game and in driver, also disable vsync and use unlimited frames to fully test CPU and memory vs CPU and memory systems/settings.For GPU it is reverse except leave vsyc off for half of the test and then with it on watch for lowest frame...etc etc

My bad, those are obviously the kind of settings you would use to get your GPU out of the picture. I don't know what I was thinking aboutWhat's your system like and mind sharing these basic FSXMark07 benches please?@ Ivan, what scenery addons? UTX? GEX?

UTX only, Dazz.

Im gonna run the MAX test tonight at 4GHz, the thing is this thread is allready way to crowded, you have to shuffle around the comments to see the results, we should do this by PM and compile a chart of a spread sheet.

yuck, I have no idea how this happened. The Max.cfg makes my default Aircraft show up all black. So I used *******' cfg and just manually put all the setting all the way right.I got min 16 max 17 avg 16.02

Good ideas all round. However, regarding premium add-ons, I don't think the idea is to see how hardware affects these. I think we should keep it simple to see the relative effects of changes in hardware.

I understand your point but the only problem there is that without some demanding add-ons we wont really see the differences in the various platforms.Heck a 940bbe @4Ghz 260GTX at the right settings can almost run neck and neck with an 980 I7 (-insert fav GPU here) on SP2 vanilla install and do it decently smooth, but then fall all apart as soon as you try to run ManhattenX at med-full settings let alone any other add-ons (even a decent mesh starts to tell the tail)...hmm now hows that tripple ch I7 - 480GTX compare? There is a difference and that is when it starts to show. How many of us run FS9/X without add-ons? Edit: And the post above is a perfect example (no offense meant) as the numbers are completely meaningless without all of the aforementioned details...

Ok. Everyone stop doing test with that flight and stop posting complaints. I'll go ahead and make a flight using PMDGs 744x from JFK to EGLL. JFK scenery must be disabled as we aren't looking at that, and Aerosofts Heathrow X must be used, as we are focusing on the landing part of it. I'll upload to avsim and include a complete setup readme. Then everyone can PM me there results, I will put them all in a spreadsheet which I will display once complete. Until then, nobody comment on here. I'll post a link to the file on avsim, and you can start from then.

Ok. Everyone stop doing test with that flight and stop posting complaints. I'll go ahead and make a flight using PMDGs 744x from JFK to EGLL. JFK scenery must be disabled as we aren't looking at that, and Aerosofts Heathrow X must be used, as we are focusing on the landing part of it. I'll upload to avsim and include a complete setup readme. Then everyone can PM me there results, I will put them all in a spreadsheet which I will display once complete. Until then, nobody comment on here. I'll post a link to the file on avsim, and you can start from then.

Not to bother you but I dont have EGLL X and Im not sure if every body has it, neither do I have 744X you need to find all people with those addons.

Well that was the reason with using default AC and scenery, everyone has it. Unfortunately we are going to have to compromise. If you want to participate, please list all addon scenery airports, and addon scenery aircraft of high quality (aerosoft, pmdg). We can the see if there is an AC and scenery that everyone has. Don't include REX, and similar addons. Just airports and aircraft.

My scenery:Aerosoft EGLLAerosoft MadridAS FrankfurtFlyTampa Vienna AS Paris CDGFlyTampa St MaartenFlyTampa BostonAC:PMDG 744XWilco V1 & V2CLS A330/340CLS A340-500/600CLS 742/743LevelD 767F1 Maddog ProJust Flight (CS) 757 Pro

CS 757 looks good, very FP/S intenseAircraftWilco e-jetsWilco 777CS 757-200SceneryAerosoft Rotterdam Xmaybe I can purchase a chosen scenery

Well, I've been searching for results in the web and found this:http://api.ning.com/...arksFinalV1.pdfand this:http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__1830446both are I7 9xx (3.8GHz & 4GHz) and both scoring 46-48 AVG FPSI disabled MyTraffic and made 2 FSXMark07 runs again:Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 14334, 300000, 30, 71, 47.780Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 14291, 300000, 29, 70, 47.637Now, how others are getting 57 (Ivan I5 750 @ 4GHz) 67 (Lucky I7 930 @ 4GHz) or 54 (Bangoman I3 540 @ 4.4GHz) is beyond me. We must be missing something hereEDIT: And a 5GHz 980X scoring 55 FPS:http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=257528

Edited October 26, 201015 yr by dazz

Well, I've been searching for results in the web and found this:http://api.ning.com/...arksFinalV1.pdfand this:http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__1830446both are I7 9xx (3.8GHz & 4GHz) and both scoring 46-48 AVG FPSI disabled MyTraffic and made 2 FSXMark07 runs again:Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg14334, 300000, 30, 71, 47.780Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg14291, 300000, 29, 70, 47.637Now, how others are getting 57 (Ivan I5 750 @ 4GHz) 67 (Lucky I7 930 @ 4GHz) or 54 (Bangoman I3 540 @ 4.4GHz) is beyond me. We must be missing something here

I cant see what were missing, have you defragmented lately?Do you have any addons enabled? I've been running all my benches with REX2 on.

Dazz,That's the problem with Flight Sim - it's so unpredictable and illogical in some performance and hardware aspects, I've long given up trying to figure it out. Something on your PC (could be something totally silly) is using a resource that FS wants for itself, obviously. Or you've set or installed something in FS that puts extra load on your PC. The problem is, it's really hard agreeing up on what to test. Some of us find it pointless testing on default aircraft/scenery, others think it's pointless testing it with only one layer of scattered clouds, etc...

Dazz,That's the problem with Flight Sim - it's so unpredictable and illogical in some performance and hardware aspects, I've long given up trying to figure it out. Something on your PC (could be something totally silly) is using a resource that FS wants for itself, obviously. Or you've set or installed something in FS that puts extra load on your PC. The problem is, it's really hard agreeing up on what to test. Some of us find it pointless testing on default aircraft/scenery, others think it's pointless testing it with only one layer of scattered clouds, etc...

What I think is wierd is how FSX looks worse with all the settings to the right...Btw I could very well be the GPU, it's the only major difference. Your GTX460, I have the GTX470 and Ivan has GTX480? Thats so weird how your setups are identical but his performs better. Make sure your anti virus is off.. plus I dont even have a 10 000RPM drive...

Well, I've been searching for results in the web and found this:http://api.ning.com/...arksFinalV1.pdfand this:http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__1830446both are I7 9xx (3.8GHz & 4GHz) and both scoring 46-48 AVG FPSI disabled MyTraffic and made 2 FSXMark07 runs again:Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg14334, 300000, 30, 71, 47.780Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg14291, 300000, 29, 70, 47.637Now, how others are getting 57 (Ivan I5 750 @ 4GHz) 67 (Lucky I7 930 @ 4GHz) or 54 (Bangoman I3 540 @ 4.4GHz) is beyond me. We must be missing something here

Sometimes its good to try and compare FSX benchies to others, you might find there are things you can do to get more performance. Main thing is when you do, you need to know that both people >realy know< how to set it up similarly thru and thru.Otherwise don't bother torturing yourself, Just keep running the test on your system or within systems that you can control and that you know and then you can start to realy know what hardware effects what, what timeings, tunings drivers etc etc - Its really worth it if your realy into it.I was trying to point out that unless you get Very Very Very Specific as to ALL settings (OS, in driver and ingame plus any custom cfg) as to how everyone is to run the test this is what will happen and you'll wonder whats wrong with your system and it can becom a wild goose chase.I'm just trying to help you guys a little here, so lastly (finaly) I'll just say - After you KNOW what hardware can do what for FSX -->Smooth flight is probably the better target to shoot for. Happy flying!