That could very well be the reason, I have no idea how FSX runs, I just google stuff and run tests but I think I read somewhere that FSX doesn't make good use (if any at all) of VRAM

Well a lot of benchmarking is actually interpretation. If you don't work with Direct3D, what's the point of commenting on the PCIe traffic?And if you do want to know I'd suggest you investigate through MSDN, not google. Everyone has to start somewhere.

Well a lot of benchmarking is actually interpretation. If you don't work with Direct3D, what's the point of commenting on the PCIe traffic?And if you do want to know I'd suggest you investigate through MSDN, not google. Everyone has to start somewhere.

You're such a pathetic troll. I don't even know why I try to be nice on you after all the crap you keep throwing acrpss these forums. What do I need working with to comment on what? You're the one who runs around claiming it takes a real programmer to be entitled to an opinion all the time, but then you have to admit you just pretend you are like that time in that thread in the MS Flight section. So lame. Stop embarrasing yourself... or better, don't. Actually I really enjoy it

No actually the last thing I do is criticize microsoft... I commend them for having the #1 engine, I try to find improvements not faults. A difference in attitude perhaps out of respect for the folks there that have dedicated their careers to the game and the field in general.

Is there something in the water here that makes people irritable and annoyed, or what?

Stephen, you just need the right mix of ingredients and you'll have just the right taste!

Stephen, you just need the right mix of ingredients and you'll have just the right taste!

You posted some UNSOURCED, untitled graphs as proof of your vast MSFS knowledge. You failed. What are those graphs of? Where are they from? Regardless, they have no bearing on FSX performance nor do they establish any kind of credibility or knowledge on your part.

I failed? LOL! You need glasses, the source was posted right there in the pos, all you had to do was click the link. I dont know what your problem is, and I dont really care.FreeBird77 Quote:"This link may take a while to load an early unedited version with all the misspellings and bad grammar GF3 TI VS.GF4 TI in FS2KGood luck Maxie!

Finally, I found my CPU: Passmark CPU rank: 952. Rank: 576. Here it is.

My result is 7033. Guess kinda crappy...Someone else do a test?? You can install and run it for free anyway, so why just not try!

I just rerun Passmark CPU Bench, and I got 8804 on the CPU. Now that is weird!

Hi all,Just ran PassMark on my rather low-end system. My CPU scored 3223.

I just rerun Passmark CPU Bench, and I got 8804 on the CPU. Now that is weird!

Word Not Allowed,I have run some tests with Passmark and enabling HT will increase the CPU results dramatically. I did CPU score 7 493 with HT disabled and 9 266 with HT enabled. Big difference. IMO this makes comparisons a bit tricky for OC:ed processors as these often run with HT disabled.If you want to optimize your score you should enable HT. Warning to you OCers - Enabling HT will increase CPU temps. Make sure that temps stay within limits.

Hi guys, I found this graph on one Czech website, which collected data from reviews all around the globe. The graph shows raw CPU power in games, without the influence of GPU and other parts. The numbers are percentage, so it is very easy to compare all the CPUs on their stock frekvencies.ENjoy.

Hi guys,I´m author of those Sandy Bridge´s game tests from rewies all around the globe http://pcsnadno.cz/node/84 I know, you may dont understand what I write about in my rewiev, anyway if you are interested, how I got those results, you can check my excell file http://pcsnadno.cz/n...72600k/hry.xlsx with huge amount of numbers from a lot of games and tests.