FSXMark11

[kludger 7]

Congratulations John!Those numbers are spot on and proof of Nvidia's superiority with FSX hands down!Kind regards,

Thanks Stephen, I am definitely enjoying the upgrade, good bang for the buck for now.I spent some time overclocking it and was pleased to find it had quite a bit of headroom from the MSI OC default of 750/1500/1950 to 950/1900/1950 with just a bit of voltage and the improvement was evident in Unigine Heaven going from 45 FPS to 52 FPS, but in FSXMark11 it was barely noticeable (46.3 to 47.2):So I will probably tune the overclock back down a bit for my usual FSX use and only turn it up for games that might benefit, and I still need to try to overclock the memory as well but I have heard that it doesn't have as much headroom, perhaps that will have more impact on FSXMark11. Edited February 10, 2012 by kludger

[Kosta 122]

You definitely got a nice bang here. Nearly 50fps is very close to the top results. Congrats. Entered your data into the sheet.

[dazz 69]

I wish we had some results with a HD6950 or a HD6970 to compare against nVidia

[DescendDescend 25]

Thanks Stephen, I am definitely enjoying the upgrade, good bang for the buck for now.I spent some time overclocking it and was pleased to find it had quite a bit of headroom from the MSI OC default of 750/1500/1950 to 950/1900/1950 with just a bit of voltage and the improvement was evident in Unigine Heaven going from 45 FPS to 52 FPS, but in FSXMark11 it was barely noticeable (46.3 to 47.2):So I will probably tune the overclock back down a bit for my usual FSX use and only turn it up for games that might benefit, and I still need to try to overclock the memory as well but I have heard that it doesn't have as much headroom, perhaps that will have more impact on FSXMark11.

Did you set WideAspect=True in the config for the test?

[kludger 7]

Did you set WideAspect=True in the config for the test?

Wow thanks for asking that DescendDescend, I just went back and double checked and indeed it looks like somehow I had left WideAspect=False on those runs!I have no idea how that slipped, I remember following the pdf and opening the fresh venotubo fsx.cfg, but since I normally run with WideAspect=False and .30 zoom to avoid stretching of the sides, it somehow must have looked normal to my brain and I must've missed changing it. My only excuse is that it was a long day and I was trying to do the benchmarking when I should have saved it for the next day.Anyhow with egg all over my face now :vava:, I went back and redid the stock and overclocked FSXMark11 runs and the average FPS is indeed 4 FPS lower with WideAspect=True, here are the fresh results stock clocks and overclocked.Stock 560Ti448:Overclocked 560Ti448:I will update my original post too, thanks in advance Word Not Allowed for correcting the spreadsheet and sorry everyone for the confusion, next time I will wait until the day after the upgrade to benchmark :fool:Update: it looks like I am not able to edit the previous post, mods feel free to edit my previous post to remove the screenshots and point here if you think that will cause confusion. Thanks. Edited February 11, 2012 by kludger

[Kosta 122]

Previous post deleted.Howard definitely nailed it! I was thinking of that just as I was on my way to bed, but he beat me to the post as I woke up in the morning! Don't beat yourself about it, I forgot the same thing on my first run.Thanks for the update.Oh yeah, I didn't enter any score. I'll be doing it soon. Just gotta set up clean FSX.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Stuff happens John. No worries!Kind regards,

[cmeeks 8]

You're certainly not the first to forget that little gem, John. Perhaps we will vote that one out of the next FSXMark version. It was put in there because I figured it's how most people were running their systems. Good catch, Howard.I thought your results were a little high at first, but once again, the FSXMark test proves to be very consistent. There's been lots of debate regarding what conclusions to draw from the results, but If nothing else, they let you know if your system isn't functioning as it should. Thanks for taking the time to retest! I know it's difficult to find the patience to do when you're chomping at the bit to get in and enjoy your new hardware.

Edited February 12, 2012 by cmeeks

[kludger 7]

Thanks guys, I am glad to have the corrected info, still really impressed with this card compared to my previous 5870 and I really appreciate the info in this thread and forum as it has helped guide me and improve my FSX experience greatly.

[DescendDescend 25]

Its still a good result John. It just seemed a bit too high before.

[kludger 7]

Its still a good result John. It just seemed a bit too high before.

Yeah still very happy and I definitely appreciate the peer review on the numbers.

[VeryBumpy 272]

Wow, at the NV vs ATI comparison above. Makes me think I should go out and buy a NV card.ATI 69708 Gig OCZRaid 0 with 2 x HITACHI Deskstar 7K1000.C(0F10383) 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/sGigabyte EP35C-DS3R v2.1E8500 at oc of 3.9GHzVista64Followed benchmark to the T.Best run is-13min, 23max, 18.41avgIs this about right what I should be getting? Here is a basic fly around pic with info...

[Speedbird 217 126]

After I reinstalled Windows, I wanted to check how my system deals with FSX. So I ran FSXMark, according to the instructions, today and got the following results:Since I get really bad results when installing any addons like NGX, GEX, REX, UTX and so on (FPS go down to 10-15 in the NGX, sitting at an airport like Heathrow with a little weather. If I add AI-traffic they drop down to 6 or so), I was wondering if this might be related to my GPU after all. There is another entry in the Benchmark result spreadsheet from user bruguima. He has basically the same setup I have, but he has a GTX 570 in his rig and achieved 10FPS more than I did!Is this really due to the GPU, and if I decided to buy a Nvidia GPU would I really get 10 FPS more? I find that hard to believe. Before I invest almost 300 Euros in a card with similar specs, I would like to hear some opinions on that. Also, is there a huge difference between the GTX560Ti and the GTX570 (except for the 100 Euros difference in price...)?Thanks in advance.

[Ben Cap 89]

Is this really due to the GPU, and if I decided to buy a Nvidia GPU would I really get 10 FPS more?

Look at the benchmark results. Make conclusions for yourself. If you were to upgrade to a GTX560ti or 570, you would see a 10+FPS improvement.

[kludger 7]

Is this really due to the GPU, and if I decided to buy a Nvidia GPU would I really get 10 FPS more? I find that hard to believe.

I did a similar upgrade and tests above:http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2254916Although I had mistakenly left WideAspect=False on those runs, the system and FSX configuration was the same for both cards and results were:ATI 5870 = 25.4 FPS AvgNV 560Ti/448 = 46.3 FPS Avg