Yeah Stephen, there's no way I can get higher FPS than you with the same CPU and a lesser video card. We'll figure it out for sure. I could even try a fresh FSX install if you guys want to try that at least to know what kind of figures we should be seeing. Then restore the back up and I'm up & running again. Your call guys

Yeah Dario, doing clean sweep installs would provide a steady base to measure from, but let's first see what else comes in for tests over the next while too. My RMAed SSD is now on the way back from gskill, so I will have to do a fresh FSX install anyway soon. Meanwhile there are enough machines and samples of those that frequent this forum to really get some solid meat to chew on. With larger numbers we can perhaps do some rationalization of the data. Twist everyones arm that you know on here to get them to run the gauntlet! I will do the same!Kind regards,

Twist everyones arm that you know on here to get them to run the gauntlet! I will do the same!

Lol! :--)Topic pinned.

I wish I knew how Stephen is getting those results. Mine are much closer to Corey.I the nearest resolution I can get without a lot of work is 1600 x 1024 x 32. HT is on.I did a number of tests:Avg: 13.910 - Min: 10 - Max: 23 1600x1024x32 WideViewAspect=True + Bojote TweaksAvg: 15.297 - Min: 10 - Max: 24 1600x1024x32 WideViewAspect=True + Bojote TweaksAvg: 13.620 - Min: 9 - Max: 22 1600x1024x32 WideViewAspect=True + Bojote TweaksThree tests above as specified in the test doc. Then:Avg: 9.013 - Min: 5 - Max: 13 6040x1200x32 WideViewAspect=True + Bojote TweaksAvg: 20.633 - Min: 0 - Max: 28 6040x1200x32 WideViewAspect=True, Day (to remove GEX lighting) + Bojote TweaksThe guess the above shows the impact of the GEX lights at dawn (as defined in the original test).I rebuilt the FSX config and applied Bojote's tweaks:Avg: 14.887 - Min: 10 - Max: 24 FSX config rebuilt 1600x1024x32 WideViewAspect=True + Bojote TweaksAvg: 27.277 - Min: 12 - Max: 35 FSX config rebuilt 1600x1024x32 WideViewAspect=True + Bojote Tweaks, DayAvg: 21.133 - Min: 7 - Max: 30 FSX config rebuilt 6040x1200x32 WideViewAspect=True + Bojote Tweaks, DayAvg: 25.070 - Min: 14 - Max: 37 FSX config rebuilt 6040x1200x32 WideViewAspect=False + Bojote Tweaks, DayThe GEX lighting is set as specified in NickN's guide.Other notes:[bufferPools]RejectThreshold=131072[JOBSCHEDULER]AffinityMask=84[GRAPHICS]HIGHMEMFIX=1

Thanks for the Benchmark......One test is worth a thousand expert opinions!Core i5-660 @ 4560 MHzAsus Maximus III GENECorsair Dominator GT 4G @ 1824 MHz (oc)EVGA GTX 260WD Velociraptor 600GBANTEC NeoPower 650WANTEC P180Swiftech MCR 220 Drive/ Apogee XTWindows 7 HP-64bitFlight Simulator X Gold (no Tweaks)FSXMark11, Display Settings Cfg: 27.821 fps avgFSMark07, Global High Cfg: 58.190 fps avgHLJAMES

Dario and Stephen, If you guys do a clean install, I'll follow suit. I really don't mind doing all this right now because I'm going to start from scratch when I get the new motherboard anyway. I realized last night that I had VSync forced on in NVIDIA Control Panel. I disabled that, deleted my FSX.CFG and allowed FSX to regenerate it, and then uninstalled the Shader 3 Mod. Finally, I added the BufferPools, AffinityMask, and HighMemFix tweaks into the new FSX.CFG and tried various settings with those. Now my results are:FSX.CFG Tweaks:[bUFFERPOOLS]UsePools=0RejectThreshold=98304PoolSize=8388608[JOBSCHEDULER]AffinityMask=14[GRAPHICS]HIGHMEMFIX=1Hardware Configuration:CPU: i7-2600k @ 4.8GHz HT OffRAM: 2X4GB DDR3 1866 (9-10-9-27)GPU: GTS 250 1GBResults:Frames: 9948Time: 300000Min: 23.7Max: 37.7Avg: 33.2

OK I ran 2 more test, here is the result...The fsg,CFG folder is at default, no tweak what so ever so the result will be as pure as possible, unless I'm mistaking what we are trying to acheive here is to see what our hardware can do right?To me any kind of tweak in the fsx.CFG folder will give a false positive, futher more, we should run some test with everything set to default..... fsx.CFG and hardware to be able to compare with our test done with the hardware overclocked, like that we can see how much better our overclocked rig run fsx compare to default.Anyway, here is my result......The GPU was running at default, CPU at 4677.4GHz mem. 2002MHz 7-7-7-21.First as showed above... frame 19720 min. 21 max. 63 avg. 45.733second test Frame 13973 min. 22 max. 63 avg. 46.243third test Frame 14029 min.22 max. 66 avg. 46.763Pretty much the same in every test.

For those of us who have never used FSXMark11 you might want to add instructions to your "FSXMark11 Benchmark Guide" on how you start the test, where your are suppose to place the files, etc.I have no clue how to do this test and I am sure that I am not the only one.

An informal post-All FSXMark11 FSX cfg. settings are as per instructions. Textures are assumed to be default -used the rex "restore" feature. Loaded scenery addons include: FlyTampa KBOS, FS Genesis and FSDreamteam stuff. Config file tweaks: Himemfix, 128k reject threshhold, and affinity mask 14. Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg12876, 300000, 24, 56, 42.920Other observationsGtx 275 vs 560TiFSXMark11 display settings are not in conformance, deviations are: 1024x728/no AA switch/AF set to Bilinear. FSXMark11 "realism" settings not used. Video card driver settings are default -I think.GTX 275Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg8921, 300000, 20, 42, 29.737GTX 560TIFrames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg14736, 300000, 25, 67, 49.120Puter specs:Asus P8P67 Deluxe, I5 2500k @ 5.0ghz, 8gigs ram (2x4) @ 1600 8-8-8-24-1T, MSI 560Ti OC -using Nvidia driver 266.66. Win7 64 RTM-Ken C

I wish I knew how Stephen is getting those results. Mine are much closer to Corey.

Hi Howard,Don't worry, we seem to all be comparing different kinds of apples here at this point. I am sure that no one computer spec for spec here is really substantially performing better that others. It is a combination of differences that are making things hard to track and understand. We will sort it all out as we acquire more data samples.Kind regards,

Dario and Stephen, If you guys do a clean install, I'll follow suit. I really don't mind doing all this right now because I'm going to start from scratch when I get the new motherboard anyway.

Hi Corey,I had to RMA my FSX SSD to G.Skill a couple of weeks ago. They mailed (USPS) it back to me yesterday from California, so who knows when I might get it here in eastern Canada. When it does arrive I will take the opportunity to reinstall everything and go from there. So if at least 3 of us do that we will get some excellent data I should think.Meanwhile, I just ran the test in extreme settings and rendering quality which I will add to the thread.Kind regards,

The fsg,CFG folder is at default, no tweak what so ever so the result will be as pure as possible, unless I'm mistaking what we are trying to acheive here is to see what our hardware can do right?

Hi Alain,I disagree because the cfg file is very buggy and prone to erratic behaviour, sometimes giving false readings higher or lower depending on the equipment. It should never be used as a standard because of it's imbred errors. FSX software problems can never be solved or overcome with hardware solutions alone, because what is essentially wrong with FSX does not get fixed just by throwing more computer bits at it.Kind regards,

Alternative FSX Maximum Quality Benchmark ResultPlease be advised that this particular test does not conform to the required specifications but exceeds them with heavy add-ons and highest possible quality.In search of greater understanding I have just run the benchmark the way I run FSX but with everything to the right except water which has a bug in the highest setting. Here are the settings:Graphics settings by GeForce SLI Profile Tool setting at ultra-high C8xQSignificant FSX.CFG Modifications[bufferpools]PoolSize=10000000RejectThreshold=131072[GRAPHICS]HIGHMEMFIX=1[TERRAIN]LOD_RADIUS=6.500000[JOBSCHEDULER]AffinityMask=15Software Specifications:Windows 64 Home Premium sp-1FSX + AccelerationUltimate Traffic 2 at 100%Real Environment OverDriveActive Sky RevolutionEquipment Specificationsi7 2600K @ 5.0gASUS P8P67120g SSD (OS), 640g Black Caviar (FSX)Mushkin Redline 8g @ 1600 Mhz 6-8-6-24Nvidia 580 GTX @ 900 MhzNvidia Driver 266.77Resolution 1920x10803 Runs with Boston Benchmarks measures with FRAPS:1. Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 8155 300000 17 37 27.183 FPS2. Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 8153 300000 17 37 27.177 FPS3. Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 8183 300000 16 37 27.277 FPS---------------------------------------------------Combined Average:Frames: 8164Time (ms): 300000Min: 16.6 FPS Max: 37 FPS Avg: 27.212 FPSPlease Note: The graphics rendering quality is set at the highest possible and the increased LOD radius more than doubles the required autogen to be portrayed. In addition the weather programs provided heavy cloud cover and Ultimate Traffic 2 loaded the airports and airspace with a large number of both airline and general aviation aircraft. These present extremely difficult circumstances for FSX however all flights were very smooth without stutters or hesitations and gave an impression of high quality butter smooth flight.This answers the question whether or not FSX can be run well no matter what software and add-ons are used. Some may say, what about that airplane or this addon? Every scenario cannot be tested but it is obvious that the machines have finally won the fight for FSX supremacy. All this is after 5 years of effort and almost just in time to abandon FSX and jump to Microsoft Flight. No matter what Flight actually is like, I think that these new machines will conquer it too! Kind regards,

Hi Alain,I disagree because the cfg file is very buggy and prone to erratic behaviour, sometimes giving false readings higher or lower depending on the equipment. It should never be used as a standard because of it's imbred errors. FSX software problems can never be solved or overcome with hardware solutions alone, because what is essentially wrong with FSX does not get fixed just by throwing more computer bits at it.Kind regards,

Hi! Stephen, my point exactly, fsx.CFG is buggy and erratic but it will the same bugs and erratic behaviour for everybody if you use the fsx.CFG at default, by tweaking the fsx.CFG all bets are off cause the test is screwed up from one rig to another. If everybody use fsx.CFG at default you will be able to see wich hardware perform the best under the same condition, the only way to get the most accurate result is for everybody to run the test under the same condition.On the other hand if you want to know wich tweak work the best you'll have to use the exact same tweak on two rig built exactly the same way with the same hardware and the same overclock. EDIT: I was just looking at your spec and you have your Mushkin Redline 8g @ 2600 Mhz 6-8-6-24...... .......typo.....1600MHz would be more like it.......:Nerd:

Isn't your CPU clock speed a typo too Alain? cause I would say a 980X @ 4677GHz should perform a lot better than that j/k

Isn't your CPU clock speed a typo too Alain? cause I would say a 980X @ 4677GHz should perform a lot better than that j/k

LOL..... remember.....I have no fsx.CFG tweak and the GTX 480 was running at default for the test....:Hug:

To me any kind of tweak in the fsx.CFG folder will give a false positive, futher more, we should run some test with everything set to default..... fsx.CFG and hardware to be able to compare with our test done with the hardware overclocked, like that we can see how much better our overclocked rig run fsx compare to default.

I would also like to add to Stephen's response that while some hardware may not have much to gain from FSX.CFG tweaks, some hardware benefits immensely from it. The .CFG has to be tailored to the hardware. Without the tweaks, it still would not be a fair comparison between hardware configurations. Personally I would like to know the performance with at least the common tweaks applied, because those are the ones that have the highest impact on FPS. No tweaks applied may not truly illustrate just how well the hardware can run FSX. If we want to get specific and idealistic, your benchmarking would be done with nothing but the most common tweaks applied (BufferPools, HighMemFix, and AffinityMask). No outside scenery, utilities, etc, etc installed. I'm perfectly fine with that, but the concern with that is that nobody will be willing to run the benchmark.It was with this in mind that the guide insists on using Bojote's online tweak tool before benchmarking unless you have already done so. Finally I would encourage you to play with the common tweaks (BufferPools, HighMemFix, and AffinityMask) and try to optimize FSX for your hardware before throwing out benchmark results.