FSXMark11

[Kosta 122]

I noted that if you forget to set WideViewAspect=True then (as expected) you end up with higher frame rates than you should. Its worth checking that you have done this.

I definitely misread that one. I just checked. On one test with it at False, I got 52, true 47. I never in my life changed that setting. I'm running 4:3, so...I really read carefulyl through the document. It has actually been said on the forums to change nothing but Bojote's tweaks, so I must have missed it. I can bet that most oversaw that thing. Thus making the benchmark probably very unreliable :Cry:

[cmeeks 8]

I doubt many people missed it. In the instructions its a dedicated bullet point, it's bold, and it's not even buried in a paragraph. Take the liberty to adjust your results in the spreadsheet accordingly. I went ahead and added the following paragraph to the first page of the guide:

Before beginning, please realize that a lot of time has gone into developing this benchmark to make it as easy for you to follow aspossible. Please respond appropriately by taking the time to follow it closely and systematically. Printing it and checking off or highlighting each completed step is a good way to make sure nothing is missed.

[Kosta 122]

I doubt many people missed it. In the instructions its a dedicated bullet point, it's bold, and it's not even buried in a paragraph. Take the liberty to adjust your results in the spreadsheet accordingly. I went ahead and added the following paragraph to the first page of the guide:

I hardly doubt that.But I'll correct it when I come around to doing the benchmark again.

[DescendDescend 25]

I hardly doubt that.But I'll correct it when I come around to doing the benchmark again.

Hi KostaThanks for removing you results temporarily. They were causing a bit of confusion to me at least. I included that comment in my results as it was the only way I could see that you could get the figures that you did. Any chance you could make the Graphics Card Model column wider to include SLI as it appears that I am the only one running it and it may make a small difference after all.Thanks also for keeping the sheets up to date anyway.

[Kosta 122]

Hi KostaThanks for removing you results temporarily. They were causing a bit of confusion to me at least. I included that comment in my results as it was the only way I could see that you could get the figures that you did. Any chance you could make the Graphics Card Model column wider to include SLI as it appears that I am the only one running it and it may make a small difference after all.Thanks also for keeping the sheets up to date anyway.

Yes, they were confusing to me too, since I had no explanation to such better performance.The problem is that the setting is quite hidden in the document, it might have a bullet and all, but still it's under the bullet which explains copy of the file, which almost everyone knows how to do...I'm just very sure that some of those results out there are with False, even if only just some, defeats the purpose of the test.I don't even understand why this setting has been taken in in the first place, since it only gives room for error, doesn't make the result more realistic when compared to others.Anyway, the column Model has been made wider.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Good detective work Sherlock! Finally we have an explanation to the variations. Hope you get a chance to re-run the tests soon Word Not Allowed. By the way, it really seems from the data that SLI or SLI + HT does make a small performance improvement (DescendDescend). Higher sampling will smooth out the numbers. I really do wish more people with different kinds of equipment would run the tests.Kind regards,

[Superpilotv2 2]

I finally did the test again with really outstanding results. But the question is: How can make such a neat little pic with the results to post them?

[DescendDescend 25]

I finally did the test again with really outstanding results. But the question is: How can make such a neat little pic with the results to post them?

Use the Win 7 Snipping tool to create an image of the excel results.

[kjjj11223344 48]

Had to reinstall windows 7 and FSX so I figured I'd run FSMark 11. Here are my results:

[Superpilotv2 2]

Use the Win 7 Snipping tool to create an image of the excel results.

Thanks. Sorry that I copied your layout. :smile:After I passed the first test without both service packs installed and tow seperate installations which messed each other I thought it was tim e to start all over again. so today I uninstalled everything from FSX and made a new one. Got very stunning results. I think I´m now where I wanted to be. Btw. I don´t know why the first one is so low and the others are nearly the same. Did them all in a row, so different setting or CPU workload shouldn´t be the culprit.My Thanks goes to Corey and Word Not Allowed who made that subjective test possible (And also for their help with other hardware things.)

[Kosta 122]

Exclude the first test from your results.

[Superpilotv2 2]

Gonna do this, second upload to come.Second version without the misleading first test result:

[Charlatan 68]

Had to reinstall Win7 today, so finally got round to the benchmarking!!

[cestlavie2010 0]

Hi,just running this benchmark but some questions:NickN advises: in installation manual of FSX:http://www.simforums.com/forums/setting-up-fsx-and-how-to-tune-it_topic29041.htmlVcrestributabledirexctxupdateand what about installation of sdk ?i installed:fsx, sdk, fsx sp1, sdk sp1, fsx sp2, sdk sp2. All in between; default flight run, reboot.running now benchmarks first at 3500mhz and will then do at 5000 mhz......will be back with results.....exiting!

[cestlavie2010 0]

strange little difference between ht 3.5 ghz on 5.0 non ht fresh install but with sdk!