FSXMark11

[Kosta 122]

I think it's all clear why some are going above 40, and others stay below 40, with one exception: kaydub. He is the only with a strong card and 4.2Ghz averaging about 30fps. Very weird...Also clocking 2500K down to 3.3 seems to have a similar impact.Anyway, all above have both good CPU and GPU.I think one can be concluded from this test: FSX is both GPU and CPU dependant, and whatever you do, you need BOTH to be very fast to really have a fast FSX.I hope my incoming monster will eat the FSX for breakfast

[dazz 69]

Well, I have my brand new GTX480 overclocked to 860MHz here ready for some FSMark11... I'll run it now so we can compare it against my 460Corey, all my previous runs where on a 860/1720/2000 GPU clock, exactly the same as the 480 I'll post in a while

[alainneedle1 97]

I almost forgot about this thread....I was trying to test again with my memory at 9-10-9-27 to compare from 7-7-6-20 but I got BSOD trying to run them with a looser timing....beats me...I tried everything to have them running at 9-10-9-27, voltage ++ to no avail.....so I gave up and I reinstalled some of my addons.I don't know if testing with FSXMarK11 will give us a definite answer (not because of FSXMarK11), see some of us here have killer rigs by today's standard, guys at 5.2GHz or 4.8GHz + with fast memory and GPU and we still run into problems with an old game...oups sorry....simulator like FSX, to me it's more because of the way FSX was coded, put together or unfinished.Did we see a lot of improvements since the 775 socket...you "betcha" but still we are talking about the same stuff bugging us over and over, I think FSX is the bottleneck on today's systems..... -_- With the high FPS I get on my rig I still see some stutterings here and there depending on what I'm doing...funny but I really do feel like FSX as to catch up with my rig and this is why we see stutterings and stuff like that (if that make senses).Luckely MS will have fixed what ever is wrong with FSX so Flight can be smooth as silk regardless of the speed of the airplane, sceneries, 2 monitor +, TrackIR or resolution we will use. Until then I'll try not to tweak again...I'll check myself into FSX rehab hoping I will not relapse........:Liar:

[RyanF 0]

Here ya go...40.1 avg...

[fghdgdfdfgfgf 111]

All of my posted results were with the default MSI 560ti clock speeds:GPU 880MHzMemory 2100MhzShader 1760MHzNote: I've had this card bumped up to 1000/2450/2000 during FSXMark11 benchmark testing with no appreciable increase in FPS.

[kaydub 3]

I think it's all clear why some are going above 40, and others stay below 40, with one exception: kaydub. He is the only with a strong card and 4.2Ghz averaging about 30fps. Very weird...Also clocking 2500K down to 3.3 seems to have a similar impact.Anyway, all above have both good CPU and GPU.I think one can be concluded from this test: FSX is both GPU and CPU dependant, and whatever you do, you need BOTH to be very fast to really have a fast FSX.I hope my incoming monster will eat the FSX for breakfast

Reinstalled W7 and stripped it and ran two runs of tests. All I get is the below, can't touch 40 fps.

[RyanF 0]

Reinstalled W7 and stripped it and ran two runs of tests. All I get is the below, can't touch 40 fps.

To be perfectly honest, I blame it on the GTX580. Your ram timing, hard drive, and cpu are all at good speeds (especially the ram), but I have great disdain for the video card. It has no problems hitting high frames during this benchmark, but the minimum frame rates are whats hurting your score. The standard deviation is too great, no consistency. Too late now, but maybe an ATI card would help you in the future? Also, maybe OC that i7 a little bit more?

[FlyVFR 58]

Here's mine. Fresh build, no bios tweaks beside memory timing. Fresh install. No addons. Only what is listed in pdf.

[kaydub 3]

To be perfectly honest, I blame it on the GTX580. Your ram timing, hard drive, and cpu are all at good speeds (especially the ram), but I have great disdain for the video card. It has no problems hitting high frames during this benchmark, but the minimum frame rates are whats hurting your score. The standard deviation is too great, no consistency. Too late now, but maybe an ATI card would help you in the future? Also, maybe OC that i7 a little bit more?

Well, also to be honest, it doesn't bother me at all. I am trying to add to the database is all. The difference between 36 fps and 40 is about 10%. Not worth burning up my chip or going ATI, which I hear can't AA clouds like my 580. I run AA_MODE_METHOD_SUPERVCAA_64X_4v12, which I don't think ATI even offers, and I really like it. In FSX I set my frame limiter to 49 and I can fly around Seattle at dense with frames in the thirties the entire time with almost no chops, jerks or stutters. I'm very pleased with my rig, and I only spent $320 for the cpu and my ASUS Sabertooth in combo. Most sites I have been to say that you can't get the 860 to 4.2 with air, so I'm happy being stable for hours on end with prime95 never touching 80*. Your SB is a fine rig for a great price also. It's what I would get, (ATI excluded), in today's market.K

[cmeeks 8]

Here's mine. Fresh build, no bios tweaks beside memory timing. Fresh install. No addons. Only what is listed in pdf.

Let's see what you get with a little bit of overclocking

[fghdgdfdfgfgf 111]

Doods! I just ran the FSXMark11 on an XP Home (32 bit) OS. I must tell ya's the results are NOT in line with the Win7 64 bench results. Seems like the 32 bit system is not able to cache the bench mark like a 64 bit system with 8 gigs of ram can. For example, my 1st runs (of a 4 run series) with XP and Win 7 have very similar scores, however, where as the Win7 scores rise (as much as 30% over the 1st run) on runs 2 thru 4 the XP scores remain the same throughout the test.Is my XP setup wrong? <------ on same hardware as my previously submitted results.

[kaydub 3]

Doods! I just ran the FSXMark11 on an XP Home (32 bit) OS. I must tell ya's the results are NOT in line with the Win7 64 bench results. Seems like the 32 bit system is not able to cache the bench mark like a 64 bit system with 8 gigs of ram can. For example, my 1st runs (of a 4 run series) with XP and Win 7 have very similar scores, however, where as the Win7 scores rise (as much as 30% over the 1st run) on runs 2 thru 4 the XP scores remain the same throughout the test.Is my XP setup wrong? <------ on same hardware as my previously submitted results.

Same happened to me on XP64...

[fghdgdfdfgfgf 111]

Hmm ...maybe the posted Win7 64 averages are invalid? Maybe the 1st run scores better reflect actual FSX performance?Man, don't we love FSX!

[RyanF 0]

Well, also to be honest, it doesn't bother me at all. I am trying to add to the database is all. The difference between 36 fps and 40 is about 10%. Not worth burning up my chip or going ATI, which I hear can't AA clouds like my 580. I run AA_MODE_METHOD_SUPERVCAA_64X_4v12, which I don't think ATI even offers, and I really like it. In FSX I set my frame limiter to 49 and I can fly around Seattle at dense with frames in the thirties the entire time with almost no chops, jerks or stutters. I'm very pleased with my rig, and I only spent $320 for the cpu and my ASUS Sabertooth in combo. Most sites I have been to say that you can't get the 860 to 4.2 with air, so I'm happy being stable for hours on end with prime95 never touching 80*. Your SB is a fine rig for a great price also. It's what I would get, (ATI excluded), in today's market.K

Fair enough, I wasn't attacking sorry if it seemed that way. I agree that you are getting great performance for the equipment you have, and was just offering suggestions though now that I look back at my post can see that it was a bit abrasive. Tell me more about that anti aliasing mode, I'm not sure what that is.

[querido 0]

RyanF: Would you tell us what CCC settings you were running (...Gaming...3D Application Settings...) please?