Alright, with so many of us setting up and tweaking brand new machines, what's the leatest and greatest guide for setting up and tweaking FSX on a high-end machine (specifically with nVidia graphics)???If anything, and hopefully I don't open a can of worms, what's the consensus on the most common tweaks (bufferpools, affinitymask, etc)? I just read the "BP=0 Conclusion" thread tonight and wasn't sure what most people are using as of now. Interesting read though, especially considering the release of recent graphics cards and the upcoming Kepler GPUs.

I am setup per http://www.simforums.com/Forums/topic34141_post198187.html#198187 nothing else.

Thanks Dario and Gary

Ok, first results: PMDG 747 in the VC, UK2000 EGLL, REX2, GEX, UTX, MyTraffic X 100% airliners...I5 750 @ 4GHz 1600 CL6Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 7214, 300000, 15, 35, 24.047I7 2600K @ 3.4GHz 1600 CL7Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 7114, 300000, 15, 35, 23.713I7 2600K @ 4GHz 1600 CL7Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 8275, 300000, 18, 40, 27.583That's a 15% better clock for clock... time to try 4.6GHz

Thanks Dario and Gary

Specific to Nvidia I am setup like this: http://www.simforums.com/Forums/nhancer-settings-for-new-drivers-updated-v1932_topic36586.htmlYou are welcome.

Ok, first results: PMDG 747 in the VC, UK2000 EGLL, REX2, GEX, UTX, MyTraffic X 100% airliners...I5 750 @ 4GHz 1600 CL6Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 7214, 300000, 15, 35, 24.047I7 2600K @ 3.4GHz 1600 CL7Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 7114, 300000, 15, 35, 23.713I7 2600K @ 4GHz 1600 CL7Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 8275, 300000, 18, 40, 27.583That's a 15% better clock for clock... time to try 4.6GHz

... and I7 2600K @ 5GHz 1600 CL6Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 9956, 300000, 22, 47, 33.187Scaling almost 1:1 with overclock, even with a 100 locked BCLK, and overall, about a 40% faster than a 4GHz Nehalem (and I predicted a 20 - 30 % :P)Where are the experts now?

... and I7 2600K @ 5GHz 1600 CL6Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 9956, 300000, 22, 47, 33.187Scaling almost 1:1 with overclock, even with a 100 locked BCLK, and overall, about a 40% faster than a 4GHz Nehalem (and I predicted a 20 - 30 % :P)Where are the experts now?

Someone's happy, CONGTRATS! Getting all my stuff together for Sunday build. Great numbers and comparisons in FSX:):Applause: Enjoy the sim now!

Ok, first results: PMDG 747 in the VC, UK2000 EGLL, REX2, GEX, UTX, MyTraffic X 100% airliners...I5 750 @ 4GHz 1600 CL6Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 7214, 300000, 15, 35, 24.047I7 2600K @ 3.4GHz 1600 CL7Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 7114, 300000, 15, 35, 23.713I7 2600K @ 4GHz 1600 CL7Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 8275, 300000, 18, 40, 27.583That's a 15% better clock for clock... time to try 4.6GHz... and I7 2600K @ 5GHz 1600 CL6Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 9956, 300000, 22, 47, 33.187Scaling almost 1:1 with overclock, even with a 100 locked BCLK, and overall, about a 40% faster than a 4GHz Nehalem (and I predicted a 20 - 30 % :P)Where are the experts now?

Edited - 15%! Wow Dario's SB system must have FSX-SP3?So... as we all know specific applications that actually do benefit from the new instruction set manage a very healthy 10-20% gain over previous I7/I5s but somehow FSX which has not been re-written with any kind of recent AVX implementations and hence makes no use of the new instruction set magically sees an increase of 15% clock per clock on your particular SB system…? Hello?That you don’t even call this into question yourself but prefer to gloat seems a tad disingenuous to the rest of forum and anyone who looks here for real honest answers. There is no doubt that this did not get benched correctly, or perhaps that I5 was very crippled in the first place. Flame away Dario…

dude he is going from an i5 to an i7 at 5ghz for these tests; his results seem pretty realistic from the basic math and clock speed changes I have done in FSX on my machine and seem inline with what I was expecting.

dude he is going from an i5 to an i7 at 5ghz for these tests; his results seem pretty realistic from the basic math and clock speed changes I have done in FSX on my machine and seem inline with what I was expecting.

I'm not your "dude", Simon.Re-read his post and the claims of clock per clock, Use the basic math stuff, we are not talking about 5Ghz vs 4Ghz here.PaulEdit Aplogies to you sir and Dario, I incorrectly used his 40% ref in the begining of my reply - though the point I was making was based on my un-edited comment concerning a stated "15%" improvment clock per clock which of course still stands.

Someone's happy, CONGTRATS! Getting all my stuff together for Sunday build. Great numbers and comparisons in FSX:):Applause: Enjoy the sim now!

Yes, me too Congrats. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" so Mrs. Beatonsaid. Go and have a feast. My gear arrives Monday(Oz time) now I am beginning to rub my hands. :Applause:

Dario,Excellent results. Thanks for sharing - I'll have to do some comparisons soon!Paul,You are forgetting that Sandy Bridge is a new architecture, perhaps you should read up on it.Corey Meeks

Dario,Excellent results. Thanks for sharing - I'll have to do some comparisons soon!Paul,You are forgetting that Sandy Bridge is a new architecture, perhaps you should read up on it.Corey Meeks

Corey,FSX depends upon very old architecture that doesnt take any advantage of SB, save the slightly improved cache latency. The unfortunant thing is that the extra instruction per clock that SB can execute do not include any SSE instructions that FSX will use.Paul

Edited - 15%! Wow Dario's SB system must have FSX-SP3?FSX which has not been re-written with any kind of recent AVX implementations and hence makes no use of the new instruction set magically sees an increase of 15% clock per clock on your particular SB system…?

Paul, I am not certain that you can so easily dismiss the empirical results of those that have posted and in some cases documented improvements. If you could support your opposition in similar fashion I would certainly enjoy the education.While Intel recommends applications are recompiled with the latest complier, in order to obtain “maximum benefit” of AVX they also state that any program making use of floating point or SIMD will benefit. http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-avx-new-frontiers-in-performance-improvements-and-energy-efficiency/Considering that the Sandy Bridge itself does utilize AVX, that W7 utilizes AVX, that video cards utilize AVX and DirectX itself can make use of AVX (certainly SIMD), an argument based on your statements (do you know how FSX was compiled and with what? I would love for you to tell me) has not been demonstrated conclusively by you.I am not trying to be argumentative with you in anyway nor am I saying that there are leaps of improvement from 17-9xx to i7-2600 (I personally would not recommend anybody jump an i7-9xx for a i7-2600), I would however encourage you to bibliograph or otherwise substantiate your position at least to the same extent as others have done theirs.

There is certainly more performance there at 4.3GHz than there was in my i7-930 at that overclock. At 5GHz, regardless of anything else, Sandy Bridge blows the doors off FSX.Kind regards,

Paul, I am not certain that you can so easily dismiss the empirical results of those that have posted and in some cases documented improvements. If you could support your opposition in similar fashion I would certainly enjoy the education.While Intel recommends applications are recompiled with the latest complier, in order to obtain “maximum benefit” of AVX they also state that any program making use of floating point or SIMD will benefit. http://software.inte...rgy-efficiency/Considering that the Sandy Bridge itself does utilize AVX, that W7 utilizes AVX, that video cards utilize AVX and DirectX itself can make use of AVX (certainly SIMD), an argument based on your statements (do you know how FSX was compiled and with what? I would love for you to tell me) has not been demonstrated conclusively by you.I am not trying to be argumentative with you in anyway nor am I saying that there are leaps of improvement from 17-9xx to i7-2600 (I personally would not recommend anybody jump an i7-9xx for a i7-2600), I would however encourage you to bibliograph or otherwise substantiate your position at least to the same extent as others have done theirs.

Gary,Understand where you think this might be sound and logical but what you are saying is like saying that new DX11 processes and the hardware that uses them can increase perfomance of FSX since FSX uses the 3D3 runtime, but we all know it cant and it wont.I have nothing I need to prove, For more than a decade I posted accurate anylitical benchmarks in the FS forum here as well as decifered the FS internals with help from some of the best of the best right here in public view,.. things have changed since then and there is no real point in getting into it other than to say that most of the data and current work belongs to other entities and for legal reasons I am happy not to risk going there. What I can tell you is that under benching the SB does have some good advantages for old FSX and the new serries of FS but has little to do with the obvious overclocking headroom /FPS increases. :Whistle:Steven,Yes, we know -SB blows the doors off of FSX.I enjoy your enthusiasm Steven, but really by now we must be aproaching what, 80-90FPS? Good grief, give the hype a rest.