FSXMark11

[worldclassleader 0]

First, here's an overview on my system specs:

• Intel Core i7 3930K 4.8GHz (HT enabled), 1344 Affinity Mask
• ASUS P9PX79 PRO
• ASUS ENGTX570 DCII (2 in SLI)
• 16GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM, 16GBs in Quad Channel (4GB per stick)
• 64GB Crucial M4 SSD (OS and productivity software on this only)
• 1TB 5400RPM Western Digital HDD (running FSX and games on this HDD)
• Cooler Master 1200w PSU (80 plus gold)
• Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
• Sharp Aquos Quatronn 40inch LED 1920x1080
• FSX w/Acceleration, GEXe, REX, PMDG 747x and 8i, MD-11, and 737 NGX. (all add-on's uninstalled for this test...that "sucked"..lol)

here are my 5 minutes test results using default settings with no add-ons: Min Max AvgTest 1: 23 60 37.78Test 2: 22 62 47.323Test 3: 30 60 46.833Test 4: 29 62 46.613What's really intersting is that my average was about 5FPS higher using REX 2.0 and Ground Environment Extreme Enhanced (North America). Also, I experimented with various Affinity Mask's, such as 62, 63, 3549, 4095, and 2730, but 1344 gave me the best results as noted in the benchmarks above.Lastly, I've used many processors to test FSX, including most recently, Intel's i7 920/930, 950, 970, 990X; and from Sandy Bridge (SB) the 2500K, 2600K, and 2700K. Compared to SB, the 3930K "feels" more fluid at the highest [density] settings and eye-candy (e.g., flare, shadows, etc) at 1920x1080. Therefore, I don't believe the FSXMark2011 benchmark is [entirely] valid because the 3930K is superior to the 2600K at 5Ghz in demanding settings; at least in my experience. Perhaps there are tweaks I'm not aware of (?) that facilitate higher FPS, as some of the 2600K benchmarks on this website exceed my results; most notably due to higher Ram speeds and tighter timings.Here are the modifications I've made to my config file:[bufferPools]UsePools=1RejectThreshold=98304PoolSize=8388608HIGHMEMFIX=1AffinityMask=1344I hope this helps..and please feel free to contact me regarding any tips you'd like to shareBest,Jacob

[davethewave2 20]

AffinityMask=1344

Only using 3 cores then!

[Superpilotv2 2]

#####, since when are the Sandy Bridge -E CPU´s sold?? Thought my system is usable and on top for some time but it seems it´s allready outdated!

[dazz 69]

#####, since when are the Sandy Bridge -E CPU´s sold?? Thought my system is usable and on top for some time but it seems it´s allready outdated!

lol, come on Steffen. It's still performing all the same, isn't it? Just because there's something newer/faster doesn't mean that all the rest is outdated. Matter of fact, it's not faster in FSX

[SpiritFlyer 987]

First, here's an overview on my system specs:

• Intel Core i7 3930K 4.8GHz (HT enabled), 1344 Affinity Mask
• ASUS P9PX79 PRO
• ASUS ENGTX570 DCII (2 in SLI)
• 16GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM, 16GBs in Quad Channel (4GB per stick)
• 64GB Crucial M4 SSD (OS and productivity software on this only)
• 1TB 5400RPM Western Digital HDD (running FSX and games on this HDD)
• Cooler Master 1200w PSU (80 plus gold)
• Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
• Sharp Aquos Quatronn 40inch LED 1920x1080
• FSX w/Acceleration, GEXe, REX, PMDG 747x and 8i, MD-11, and 737 NGX. (all add-on's uninstalled for this test...that "sucked"..lol)

here are my 5 minutes test results using default settings with no add-ons: Min Max AvgTest 1: 23 60 37.78Test 2: 22 62 47.323Test 3: 30 60 46.833Test 4: 29 62 46.613What's really intersting is that my average was about 5FPS higher using REX 2.0 and Ground Environment Extreme Enhanced (North America). Also, I experimented with various Affinity Mask's, such as 62, 63, 3549, 4095, and 2730, but 1344 gave me the best results as noted in the benchmarks above.Lastly, I've used many processors to test FSX, including most recently, Intel's i7 920/930, 950, 970, 990X; and from Sandy Bridge (SB) the 2500K, 2600K, and 2700K. Compared to SB, the 3930K "feels" more fluid at the highest [density] settings and eye-candy (e.g., flare, shadows, etc) at 1920x1080. Therefore, I don't believe the FSXMark2011 benchmark is [entirely] valid because the 3930K is superior to the 2600K at 5Ghz in demanding settings; at least in my experience. Perhaps there are tweaks I'm not aware of (?) that facilitate higher FPS, as some of the 2600K benchmarks on this website exceed my results; most notably due to higher Ram speeds and tighter timings.I hope this helps..and please feel free to contact me regarding any tips you'd like to shareBest,Jacob

Thank you Jacob,Those results will make a valuable addition to our data base. Since we only use the last three runs of the test your average FPS are 46.923, which is more or less what was expected from the SB-E series. The extra cores in SB-E which can be a benefit in other applications, may actually be somewhat of a burden when it comes to FSX. That was also the case with the 980X and the 990X, which in their case, provided an inferior FSX experience to early SB models.In regards to your subjective preception of FSX smoothness goes, many here can assure you that some of the faster SBs provide completely maxed out settings and supersamped rendering in the most complex aircraft and most demanding sceneries yet devised with silky smoothness. If the 3930K is superior to the 2600K at 5Ghz in FSX, it would show in the numbers, and it doesn't, at least not yet. However, other SB-E units are being build within this community so we will soon have a wider sample that will lower the chance of computational error.Looks like you have a fantastic machine! How about some pictures of how it looks? I really appreciate you taking the time to run the tests. I hope that you will enjoy FSX to the max and that your equipment does for you what you want it to do. Once again, thank you sir.Kind regards,

[dazz 69]

I might add:

more fluid at the highest [density] settings and eye-candy (e.g., flare, shadows, etc)

FSMark11 settings include maxed out AG & Scenery density (and apart from traffic which was intentionally left out, just about everything else cranked up), Lens flare ON and Aircraft Shadows on the Ground checked too

[Superpilotv2 2]

lol, come on Steffen. It's still performing all the same, isn't it? Just because there's something newer/faster doesn't mean that all the rest is outdated. Matter of fact, it's not faster in FSX

Well, didn´t mean that serious! It´s fascinating how fast things go on...

[worldclassleader 0]

Only using 3 cores then!

I know right!! LOL.....I can't explain it...perhaps Microsoft can...hehehehe

[worldclassleader 0]

I might add:FSMark11 settings include maxed out AG & Scenery density (and apart from traffic which was intentionally left out, just about everything else cranked up), Lens flare ON and Aircraft Shadows on the Ground checked too

That's right...I noticed that in the settings. Another observation: Using the same FSXMark2011 settings on a 1920x1080x32 resolution, Ground Environment Extreme Enhanced North America, REX 2.0, and PMDG's 747-8i at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, I would achieve 20FPS parked on the runway with the 2600K at 5GHz. Whereas, the 3930K at 4.8GHz was idiling between 30-40FPS. Therefore, I reason that the 3930K is definitely an improvement over the 2600K. It will be great to compare my SB-E results to others as they become available. =)

Only the FSX is outdate.

+1

[worldclassleader 0]

Thank you Jacob,Those results will make a valuable addition to our data base. Since we only use the last three runs of the test your average FPS are 46.923, which is more or less what was expected from the SB-E series. The extra cores in SB-E which can be a benefit in other applications, may actually be somewhat of a burden when it comes to FSX. That was also the case with the 980X and the 990X, which in their case, provided an inferior FSX experience to early SB models.In regards to your subjective preception of FSX smoothness goes, many here can assure you that some of the faster SBs provide completely maxed out settings and supersamped rendering in the most complex aircraft and most demanding sceneries yet devised with silky smoothness. If the 3930K is superior to the 2600K at 5Ghz in FSX, it would show in the numbers, and it doesn't, at least not yet. However, other SB-E units are being build within this community so we will soon have a wider sample that will lower the chance of computational error.Looks like you have a fantastic machine! How about some pictures of how it looks? I really appreciate you taking the time to run the tests. I hope that you will enjoy FSX to the max and that your equipment does for you what you want it to do. Once again, thank you sir.Kind regards,

Stephen,That makes sense; especially considering that many of you have been experimenting with various configurations as they relate to FSXMark2011. It will be interesting to see how other SB-E benchmarks compare with mine. Well, glad I could contribute to the community! I'll post some photos of my 600-GT build to this post, which should be further towards the bottom..Best,Jacob

[worldclassleader 0]

Hey guys...Here are some photos of my 3930K build...

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Man, what a brute! Be sure to repost these in the http://forum.avsim.net/topic/300591-pictures-of-our-fsx-computers/ forum right beside the one we are now in. Love the colors and tasteful but elegant layout.Kind regards,

[dazz 69]

Definitely a great looking rig!

[worldclassleader 0]

Man, what a brute! Be sure to repost these in the http://forum.avsim.n...-fsx-computers/ forum right beside the one we are now in. Love the colors and tasteful but elegant layout.Kind regards,

Will do..thanks Stephen! ;)

Definitely a great looking rig!

+10000000 lol....thanks Dazz.. ;)

[simon747 185]

The extra cores in SB-E which can be a benefit in other applications, may actually be somewhat of a burden when it comes to FSX. That was also the case with the 980X and the 990X, which in their case, provided an inferior FSX experience to early SB models.

The 980x/990x was NOT SB, so you cannot compare a 980x to early SB models, also as we all know smoothness is not always reflected in FPS.