FSXMark11

[Ben Cap 89]

OK so I've put together my new fltsim PC and wanted to set a benchmark before I start OC'ng.

See My PC profile for the rig details.

 

So heres whats been done:

 

Bios: Turned off hyperthreading & manually entered in DRAM timings

OS: Turned off power saving & installed the latest drivers

FSX: Straight install w/ Accel to separate HDD drive and settings according to the FSMark11 guide

 

Very nice results considering you aren't even OCed! If you can get that 3930K up to ~4.5GHZ, your results will likely be around 45-47FPS.

[cpt-robie 0]

Very nice results considering you aren't even OCed! If you can get that 3930K up to ~4.5GHZ, your results will likely be around 45-47FPS.

 

Thanks Ben.

We'll see.

I've never OC'd before but I've been doing a lot of research on the subject.

Also since I'm air cooling I don't know how high I can push it (The NH-DH14 is a monster though B) ).

[Gundamnitpete 0]

Here are some results from the new AMD FX-8350, against my old FX-8120. The first two results are clock for clock, at 4.3ghz. The 8350's IPC improvments help it take the lead over the 8120 at the same clocks, and because it is so much cooler, I can push it to 4.6ghz on my cooling (H60, not really a good cooling solution). The third result is the 8350 at max clocks on my cooling, if I had better cooling I could probably hit 5ghz no problem. The memory is kingston hyper x running 1866mhz at 9-9-9-24, motherboard is a Asus Sabertooth Rev 1, and graphics card is an MSI 6870 Hawk.

 

8120:

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

6126, 300000, 13, 30, 20.420

8350:

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

7909, 300000, 16, 36, 26.363

8350@4.6ghz:

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

8248, 300000, 18, 38, 27.493

I think if I had an Nvidia GPU, I'd see even higher numbers, but as it stands right now I'm fairly happy. If I were to buy again, I'd get the 8320, as it can clock just as high as a 8350 and only costs $170.

[Kosta 122]

Is it out of financial reasons you decided to stay with AMD?

[Gundamnitpete 0]

Is it out of financial reasons you decided to stay with AMD?

 

Yes and no. I already have a Sabertooth 990FX, so the swap made sense. I primarily use my PC for video rendering in sony vegas, and using the twixtor plugin, I saw a 30% reduction in render time going from my 8120 to my 8350(@4.6ghz).

 

8120:

 

8350:

 

Heavily threaded applications love piledriver.

 

Here is the kind of video I edit:

 

[Kosta 122]

OK, that is some seriously cool stuff! Love the gizmos!

 

Now, let's leave this topic on topic though! :wink:

[SAAB340 28]

Here are some results from the new AMD FX-8350, against my old FX-8120.

Hi There.

Cool video.

As you are one of few people that uses an AMD FX processor may I ask you if you could do a quick test for me? It involves running FSXmark11 but with different affinity mask from the official one. I take it the tweaking tool will have assigned affinity mask 254 for your FSXmark11 test?

 

I would be really pleased if you could try with non standard Affinity mask 9 and 3 as well. Don't worry if you don't have a clean install any more. As long as you use the FSXmark11 flight it'll be fine. I'm trying to see how AMDs 'module' design works within FSX in comparison to Intels Hyper threading.

[markoni 0]

Hi everybody,

I have been researching very much about FSX performance lately, specially considering Sandy and Ivy bridge processors. My current spec is not able to provide me decent performance since 737 NGX came up. This topic gave me great insight of what I could expect with the upgrade, but there is something I would also like to know. How do these three tests reflect the level of performance compered with the most demanding scenario in FSX. When I say most demanding scenario, I mean , for example, landing to KSEA in PNW and, of course, in 737NGX VC or landing to YBBN in the same plane.

Is there anyone with Sandy or Ivy who could test these scenarios with FSXMark11, if that option exists at all.

Thanks.

[wil02081 0]

2600K & 3570K

 

 

 

 

[TechguyMaxC 516]

2600K & 3570K

 

 

 

 

 

Get some decent RAM and watch your 3570k results jump 10%

[westman 257]

 

 

Get some decent RAM and watch your 3570k results jump 10%

Agree to 100%, a perfect example for them that thinking rams not give any more fps

[VeryBumpy 272]

Get some decent RAM and watch your 3570k results jump 10%

 

Wouldn't both CPUs jump up 10%, not just the 3570k.

[TechguyMaxC 516]

 

Wouldn't both CPUs jump up 10%, not just the 3570k.

 

Sandy Bridge doesn't scale with RAM speed anywhere near as well Ivy Bridge. In fact, you're lucky to get Sandy to even run at more than 2000MHz whereas Ivy loves RAM speed well in excess of 2000MHz. For example, I run my RAM at 2600MHz. I saw a 10% gain in FPS in this very test moving from 1600 just to 2133.

[westman 257]

 

 

Wouldn't both CPUs jump up 10%, not just the 3570k.

 

Check My runs on page 20 , SB 2700k the rams 2255 cl8 @5.38ghz Very hard to push the ram higer on SB.

And the @5.0 3770k with rams @2666 cl10

Its the same sticks on the SB they Begin to be unstable at @2300mhz with the IB @2900mhz the problem

Its not the rams its all to the memcontroller

[wil02081 0]

Alright this was the first time I've tried to overclock my RAM and didn't find too much reading on how to do it so I wasn't sure how high I could push the volts. I stopped at 1.66 and couldn't get to 2133. I took the volts back down to 1.50 and this was the best I could do. It upped the average 0.8. Thanks for the tip, I'll try the 3570K a bit later when I get more time.