"The" question..

[David Roch 1,982]

After those are installed, im going to bed (during the day ;)) for a few hours, then I'll do a test flight without any tweaks. I'll then apply a tweaked FSX.cfg and compare again.

You are brave (or crazy like most of us, or both)!

[Alex Sarfati 0]

You are brave (or crazy like most of us, or both)!

Oh Crazy...definitely crazy hahah.

[flo1981 9]

Oh Crazy...definitely crazy hahah.

No, he's simply an FSX enthousiast!

[Alex Sarfati 0]

No, he's simply an FSX enthousiast!

A very crazy and completely bonkers enthusiast at that. Oh how I love my flight sims....

[tfm 169]

Without a doubt a Sandy Bridge i7 is faster than a 1366 clock for clock. The question is by how much. ... At Aerosoft's EDDF taxying the PMDG 747 in VC on 3840x1024x32 the frame rate will fall to about 15 fps. Typically on approach it will be around 20.Edit: Just tried it on low resolution to make sure that Graphics is having no effect and the frame rate on approach is lower than I quoted. Dips to about 11 and typically 13-15.

Historically, generic benchmarks have given little clue about the likely impact of new technology on FSX. I suspect that the same is true of SB - which is why we need more hands-on reports like this: thanks.Just to give a point of reference for anyone interested:In the same scenario (PMDG 747 at Aerosoft EGLL), with an i7 975 @ 4.4GHz, a GTX285 and 6 GB RAM @ 1866-7-8-7-N1, I find noticeable variations depending on the weather depicted by FSX. But as a rough idea my FPS are usually ABOUT the same as reported here for the 2600K @ 4.6GHz: the numbers for the 2600K look a LITTLE bit on the low side compared with what I'm used to seeing with the i7 975, but not by much: a difference of maybe 3-5 fps. EDIT: also, looking at later posts in this thread: yes, Ultimate Terrain X can make a difference and will certainly make a big difference when night lighting is "on".I appreciate that the different graphics card (and no doubt lots of other things) stop this from being a true "like for like" comparison - but if anything, the difference is likely to under-state the relative performance of the i7 975 so perhaps it's better than nothing. Also, it tends to confirm what one might expect given Intel's current line-up of parts. Past experience suggests that FSX is one of the few applications which does actually benefit from well-optimized RAM, so it would perhaps be unsurprising to find that the triple-channel parts in the high-end of the last generation will POTENTIALLY hold their own against the current crop of dual-channel mid-range SB parts for a while yet.Looking at the reports from various posts, my hunch at the moment is that MAIN differences made by SB for FSX - which may well be different from other applications - are (1) as between two well-tuned systems, SB has brought top-notch performance into the mid-range of prices, rather than raising the bar by much. It looks as if you're getting about the same performance for c.£900 as I bought for c.£1800k in 2009; and(2) it may be easier than before to get acceptable (if not top-notch) performance without any overclocking, or with less aggressive overclocking.Tim

[DescendDescend 25]

That's weird, I thought the lower 1920x 1080 res would yeild a little better fps than the original 3840x1024, maybe thats the 580 gtx's strength? FSX is a weird game:)(

Sorry, I wasnt very clear. The resolution made no difference to the performance. I retested to check my original figures and did so a lower resolution to see if it made any difference. With the GTX580 it doesnt. The original figures were just wrong.

[Kosta 122]

Why do even people talk about running the sim below 25fps? If it drops below 27-28fps, I feel stuttering. 30fps is for me a must. In 747x or lds VC. I will lower the settings before doing crappy 15fps...We already know that no CPU will run fsx fully blown, at 30fps no matter what you throw at it :-)I tried my VC performance at various airports also payware ones. I have to keep my autogen at normal to have anything close to satisfying.Not even 2600k is going to change that...

[Alex Sarfati 0]

Hi Word Not Allowed,With my old setup (i5 650 @ 3.2, GTS450, 8GB 1333Mhz) I used to run PMDG 744x, AS EGLL, REX, GEX, UT2 @ 100% at about 15 FPS in VC, and 18 in spot. However, I had a very well tweaked FSX.cfg and display profile. It may be telling me it's low FPS, but I only ever got one or two microstutters every minute or so. Not that bad for a stock clock dual core! I suppose it's what we are used to. Before that machine, I had a Pentium 4 3GHz, 1GB DDR. Upgrading to the 650 was like a massive jump in performance. Whereas you are used to powerful systems, the latest hardware etc. You know what it's like to fly FSX smoothly ;)Put it this way, millions of people fly economy class every year., tens of thousands business, and only thousands first. My upgrade to a 650 was like flying in business for the first time after flying in economy for many many flights. A massive step up. Your sitting in first, and always have been. You don't know what economy is like ;). Lucky bugger

[simon747 185]

Sorry duplicate post :(

[simon747 185]

Historically, generic benchmarks have given little clue about the likely impact of new technology on FSX. I suspect that the same is true of SB - which is why we need more hands-on reports like this: thanks.Just to give a point of reference for anyone interested:In the same scenario (PMDG 747 at Aerosoft EGLL), with an i7 975 @ 4.4GHz, a GTX285 and 6 GB RAM @ 1866-7-8-7-N1, I find noticeable variations depending on the weather depicted by FSX. But as a rough idea my FPS are usually ABOUT the same as reported here for the 2600K @ 4.6GHz: the numbers for the 2600K look a LITTLE bit on the low side compared with what I'm used to seeing with the i7 975, but not by much: a difference of maybe 3-5 fps. EDIT: also, looking at later posts in this thread: yes, Ultimate Terrain X can make a difference and will certainly make a big difference when night lighting is "on".I appreciate that the different graphics card (and no doubt lots of other things) stop this from being a true "like for like" comparison - but if anything, the difference is likely to under-state the relative performance of the i7 975 so perhaps it's better than nothing. Also, it tends to confirm what one might expect given Intel's current line-up of parts. Past experience suggests that FSX is one of the few applications which does actually benefit from well-optimized RAM, so it would perhaps be unsurprising to find that the triple-channel parts in the high-end of the last generation will POTENTIALLY hold their own against the current crop of dual-channel mid-range SB parts for a while yet.Looking at the reports from various posts, my hunch at the moment is that MAIN differences made by SB for FSX - which may well be different from other applications - are (1) as between two well-tuned systems, SB has brought top-notch performance into the mid-range of prices, rather than raising the bar by much. It looks as if you're getting about the same performance for c.£900 as I bought for c.£1800k in 2009; and(2) it may be easier than before to get acceptable (if not top-notch) performance without any overclocking, or with less aggressive overclocking.Tim

Good points Tim,1) however, most ppl myself included, cannot get 4.4 ghz out of a 9xx processor; that is a very good chip/oc you have....I can only get 3.8 out of mine. 2) it is hard to pinpoint benchmarks per system unless it is the same pc or user as .cfg files differ and tweaks and windows background programs-usage very so much per computer. So comparing your fps at the same airport with similar add-ons is hard to generalize with Descend Descend.3)I am just not sold on triple chanel in gaming preformance; memory is important in FSX, but clock speed is the driving factor in FSX, do if you have a quad core over 4.5, you should be fine either way.4)Agreed it is a cheap and good upgrade for those on older platforms and those on low oc's like me.

[Alex Sarfati 0]

Hi,I used to run on stock clocks just fine ;)

[tfm 169]

1) ... most ppl myself included, cannot get 4.4 ghz out of a 9xx processor ...

Yes I could be lucky but don't forget that I paid (a lot) extra for the unlocked multiplier on a 975.

2) ... comparing your fps at the same airport with similar add-ons is hard to generalize with Descend Descend ...

True, of course: but personally I think that having a broad range of experience reported on the boards helps individuals to build up their own mental picture about how different bits of kit interact with each other.

3)I am just not sold on triple chanel in gaming preformance; memory is important in FSX, but clock speed is the driving factor in FSX, do if you have a quad core over 4.5, you should be fine either way.

It's a tricky one; people have different experiences and I imagine that quite a lot depends on exactly how you set the stuff up. If I had been more disciplined over the years I'd have kept proper figures. I could well be wrong and it is impossible / impractical to neutralise all other possible variables but for what it's worth, here's my view:(EDIT: I don't why but in what follows there is a strange winking smiley instead of the letter "B" between parentheses: obviously this ghastly icon is a result of the character combination and is not something I would willingly inflict on anyone.)My experience about the impact of memory speed is based on going from (A) a dual-processor Xeon system (2 x Xeon 5160) at 3GHz and QUAD channel memory with a read rate of 3.5Gb/s, to (B) an E8500@~3.5GHz with dual channel RAM and memory read rate ~4.5Gb/s, to © an E8600@~3.8GHz with slightly faster dual channel RAM and memory read rate ~6.0Gb/s, to (D) an i7-975@4.4GHz with pretty fast triple channel RAM and memory read rate ~20Gb/s. I can still run the Everest tests on (A) and (D) so those memory read rates are pretty accurate; the figures for (B) and © are just my recollection but they were in that ball-park. Those changes were all in the space of about a year, so I noticed the differences at the time. Other components (graphics card, disk sub-system) were pretty much constant. The move from (A) to (B) and © was disappointing and did not match the extra CPU speed: the improvement was MORE in proportion to the extra bandwidth of the new RAM. Only the move to © brought a REALLY appreciable difference from (A) - though sadly not in proportion to the extra memory bandwith!Obviously, you can waste a lot of time shaving nanoseconds off latency etc with no worthwhile difference to FSX: for example, the difference between 17Gb/s and 20Gb/s, although measurable in some conditions in FSX (see earlier posts from me) is unlikely to be appreciable in most circumstances. However, my OVERALL sense, based on this experience, is that memory has quite a large part to play in overall FSX performance. I suppose it makes no difference whether better bandwidth/speed is delivered through extra channels or though intrinsically faster pathways/components. But one way or another personally I would always be inclined to go for the fastest possible memory sub-system for any given generation of technology, and get it well tuned.Tim

[simon747 185]

Yes I could be lucky but don't forget that I paid (a lot) extra for the unlocked multiplier on a 975.True, of course: but personally I think that having a broad range of experience reported on the boards helps individuals to build up their own mental picture about how different bits of kit interact with each other.It's a tricky one; people have different experiences and I imagine that quite a lot depends on exactly how you set the stuff up. If I had been more disciplined over the years I'd have kept proper figures. I could well be wrong and it is impossible / impractical to neutralise all other possible variables but for what it's worth, here's my view:(EDIT: I don't why but in what follows there is a strange winking smiley instead of the letter "B" between parentheses: obviously this ghastly icon is a result of the character combination and is not something I would willingly inflict on anyone.)My experience about the impact of memory speed is based on going from (A) a dual-processor Xeon system (2 x Xeon 5160) at 3GHz and QUAD channel memory with a read rate of 3.5Gb/s, to (B) an E8500@~3.5GHz with dual channel RAM and memory read rate ~4.5Gb/s, to © an E8600@~3.8GHz with slightly faster dual channel RAM and memory read rate ~6.0Gb/s, to (D) an i7-975@4.4GHz with pretty fast triple channel RAM and memory read rate ~20Gb/s. I can still run the Everest tests on (A) and (D) so those memory read rates are pretty accurate; the figures for (B) and © are just my recollection but they were in that ball-park. Those changes were all in the space of about a year, so I noticed the differences at the time. Other components (graphics card, disk sub-system) were pretty much constant. The move from (A) to (B) and © was disappointing and did not match the extra CPU speed: the improvement was MORE in proportion to the extra bandwidth of the new RAM. Only the move to © brought a REALLY appreciable difference from (A) - though sadly not in proportion to the extra memory bandwith!Obviously, you can waste a lot of time shaving nanoseconds off latency etc with no worthwhile difference to FSX: for example, the difference between 17Gb/s and 20Gb/s, although measurable in some conditions in FSX (see earlier posts from me) is unlikely to be appreciable in most circumstances. However, my OVERALL sense, based on this experience, is that memory has quite a large part to play in overall FSX performance. I suppose it makes no difference whether better bandwidth/speed is delivered through extra channels or though intrinsically faster pathways/components. But one way or another personally I would always be inclined to go for the fastest possible memory sub-system for any given generation of technology, and get it well tuned.Tim

Looks like you have looked into memory quite a bit in FSX. Not too sure how it comes into play when we are talking minium frames (heavy add-on areas) in the low teens how the user would notice much differnce in the feel of the sim or in FPS as even a 10% in overall PC speed would equate to only 1 fps....you get the idea. I feel a user who wants the most from FSX, it is best to get the highest clock speed on a four core with decent memory is the way to go. 2600k's seem to oc to 4.6-4.8 reasonable well for new technology which I feel would well exceed, both in fps and feel, an average 9xx oc of 4.0 by a measureable amount given any memory circumstances. If you have an oc on a 9xx of under 4.0, than 1155 would suit well as a good upgrade if you feel the sim runs too slow. If you are a 9xx or 1156 user with an oc of 4.2 currently then I would say best to leave as is until the next bit of technology if you are happy with your current set-up. But its all up to the individual user and their requirements of the sim as to what works best for them.

[Alex Sarfati 0]

Looks like you have looked into memory quite a bit in FSX. Not too sure how it comes into play when we are talking minium frames (heavy add-on areas) in the low teens how the user would notice much differnce in the feel of the sim or in FPS as even a 10% in overall PC speed would equate to only 1 fps....you get the idea. I feel a user who wants the most from FSX, it is best to get the highest clock speed on a four core with decent memory is the way to go. 2600k's seem to oc to 4.6-4.8 reasonable well for new technology which I feel would well exceed, both in fps and feel, an average 9xx oc of 4.0 by a measureable amount given any memory circumstances. If you have an oc on a 9xx of under 4.0, than 1155 would suit well as a good upgrade if you feel the sim runs too slow. If you are a 9xx or 1156 user with an oc of 4.2 currently then I would say best to leave as is until the next bit of technology if you are happy with your current set-up. But its all up to the individual user and their requirements of the sim as to what works best for them.

Hi,Have you ever tried tweaking your FSX? At the moment, you're sitting around telling us that your 3.8GHz 920 runs FSX terribly. If you tweak FSX, it will run smooth. You're recommending people in certain categories to upgrade or not. I would be in the upgrade category, which I did do. Yet, with my tweaked FSX, I ran it really smoothly for a stock clocked i5 650. That's no sandy bridge, yet it runs AS EGLL, PMDG 744x, REX, GEX, UT2 @ 100% at 15+ FPS and only slight microstutters. I bet that if you went and tweaked your FSX right now, in 10 minutes you'd come back noticing a big improvement. An upgrade is not always required.PS: Use Bojote's tweaking tool and shaded 3.0 mod

[Hypo 1]

15-20 FPS :))))))) LOL