FSXMark11

[SAAB340 28]

Is BP=0 supposed to have a negative effect on the benchmark? I just ran it with BP=0, out of interest, and registered a ~5% drop in FPS.

Are you sure you didn't change anything else as well? BP=0 should not have a negative impact.

[Noble. 142]

Are you sure you didn't change anything else as well? BP=0 should not have a negative impact.

 

Yes, nothing else was changed, turning it back on (with reject threshold as per Bojote's tool) gave me back the extra 5%.

[Yvuss 0]

Hi,

 

New Computer.

 

I follow exactly : FSXMark11 Installation & Benchmark Guide.pdf

 

 

 

After, I test with 3 monitors 27 inch : 5760 X 1080 (NVidia surround)

 

 

 

Yves

[Kosta 122]

Thanks Yves. This is a clear test many are asking about how many performance one loses when going from one to 3 screens. Basically 25% performance is lost.

[McLaren 42]

Got my build up and running over the weekend.

 

[Ben Cap 89]

Got my build up and running over the weekend.

 

 

Are you sure that you have wideviewaspect=true?

[McLaren 42]

Are you sure that you have wideviewaspect=true?

 

Yes. I double checked that before the first run.

[Ben Cap 89]

Yes. I double checked that before the first run.

 

Then, I have to say, impressive results!

[westman 257]

Check one more time.

With that ram speed and clock , you have 4 -5 fps to much.

Check HL James system 0,2ghz on CPU 2666 cl10 to 1600 cl7

I cant do 51 with 4,95 2300 cl9 with 3770k you can do it @5.2 with that ram speed.

Its only math, HL James with his his 3770 system and My 2700k system do 57-58 fps

 

Hasse

[westman 257]

[McLaren 42]

One more check Max fps with 670 73fps more than HL James 680 and My

5.35 run � get 73fps when checking the 3770k @4.7 w=false

 

Hasse

 

I installed some addons last night after the test but I made an image to roll back to, I will try it again sometime this week. Should I try with Wideview=True or False? I have it set to true right now with the Bojote CFG, no other tweaks. Also should I keep the RAM as it is or try to push it to 2133?

 

Thanks!

[larshall 4]

I'm afraid I simply don't get it.

My results (first reported a week ago) either show a serious bottleneck on my system or indicates that something isn't quite right with Avg. FPS over 50 on systems with the very similar active cores on the CPU, RAM, GPU and closed loop water cooling.

I can add that I've since done a series of tests @4.7 with Lucid MVP, (off, Hyperperformance only, full) - all gives results of Avg. FPS 40 +-1.

I'd of course rather be able to pinpoint a potential bottleneck to reach the FPS levels (i.e Avg. 50+) reported by some, but for now i fail to see where it might be.

I did go on installing FSX with the add-ons I use, and unfortunately didn't make any image to roll back to, so for now I'm afraid this must be my last contribution with results of FSXMark11 in this thread.

But I'll follow the discussion with great interest :-)

 

Lars

[Ben Cap 89]

I'm afraid I simply don't get it.

My results (first reported a week ago) either show a serious bottleneck on my system or indicates that something isn't quite right with Avg. FPS over 50 on systems with the very similar active cores on the CPU, RAM, GPU and closed loop water cooling.

I can add that I've since done a series of tests @4.7 with Lucid MVP, (off, Hyperperformance only, full) - all gives results of Avg. FPS 40 +-1.

I'd of course rather be able to pinpoint a potential bottleneck to reach the FPS levels (i.e Avg. 50+) reported by some, but for now i fail to see where it might be.

I did go on installing FSX with the add-ons I use, and unfortunately didn't make any image to roll back to, so for now I'm afraid this must be my last contribution with results of FSXMark11 in this thread.

But I'll follow the discussion with great interest :-)

 

Lars

 

I am convinced that your issue is correlated directly with your RAM clockspeed. The IB memory controller really seems to like high clocks with decent timings. ie 2400MHZCL10

 

2400MHZCL10 would likely bump your results to 44-45FPS.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Cory or Word Not Allowed,

 

There is an error in the spreadsheet as the top recorded machine is supposed to be a 3770K, not a 3700K. This may be confusing to some, so it should be corrected. Thanks.

 

Kind regards,

[SAAB340 28]

Hi,

Can I just chime in with these official results confirming that in FSXmark11

1 HT on/off has no effect (It's just the clockspeed you get that will affect)

2 Your storage has no effect

3 Being limited by PCIe bus does affect the result

 

HT: Off, Slow 5400rpm 2.5" HDD

 

 

HT: On, Slow 5400rpm 2.5" HDD

 

 

HT: Off, Fast 10000rpm 2.5" HDD

 

 

HT: Off, Fast 10000rpm 2.5" HDD x8 PCIe 2.0 bus

 

 

I don't have any official results to show but RAM speeds/timings do influence performance in FSX. It has the same effect as upping the CPU clockspeed so it's most noticable when we're only CPU limited. It doesn't do much if you just change it a little, but the memory controller in IvyBridge seems to be a very competent one enabling us to use a lot faster RAM. And increasing the bandwidth with actual speed is always better than increasing it by adding more channels.

 

Looking through my old notes I can see a 2.6% improvement by running a single chanel RAM @ twise the speed of Dual Chanel while keeping the latency the same. They both have the same theoretical bandwidth. (1600Mhz Single Chanel C8 vs 800Mhz Dual Chanel C4)

I can also see a 6.1% improvement by doubling the bandwidth with RAM speed while keeping latency the same. (1600Mhz Dual Chanel C8 vs 800Mhz Dual Chanel C4)

But only 3.4% improvment by doubling the bandwith by going Dual Chanel instead of Single Chanel (1600Mhz Dual Chanel C8 vs 800Mhz Dual Chanel C4)

 

I can also see a 2.5% improvement by tightning the timings from C9 to C7 @1528Mhz Dual Chanel.

 

So it wouldn't be surprising to see the equivalent of going from 4.5 to 5.0 Ghz on Ivy bridge by going from a 1333Mhz C9 to a 2666Mhz C10 kit with the CPU staying at 4.5Ghz.

 

But don't pay crazy money for an extremely high performance RAM kit. Go for sensible priced performance kits. Huge changes in RAM will give a small noticable improvement, but smaller changes might be measurable but they are so small so you won't notice it. Hardly worth loads of money.