FSXMark11

[Great Ozzie 101]

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

 

Ok... for all intents and purposes I am a noob wrt to o.c.ing memory... someone please correct me here if I am wrong... but I thought a huge NO NO to up the volts on memory... i.e. if the stuff rated at 1.5v you don't up volts unless you don't care about burning "something" up.

 

--------------

 

Aha... found the answer to that by NickN over at SimForums If the memory is NOT RATED for 1.60-1.65 you CAN NOT safely increase the DRAM voltage.

[westman 257]

 

 

Ok... for all intents and purposes I am a noob wrt to o.c.ing memory... someone please correct me here if I am wrong... but I thought a huge NO NO to up the volts on memory... i.e. if the stuff rated at 1.5v you don't up volts unless you don't care about burning "something" up.

 

--------------

 

Aha... found the answer to that by NickN over at SimForums If the memory is NOT RATED for 1.60-1.65 you CAN NOT safely increase the DRAM voltage.

Put it this way if you now your sticks and now what you do its no problem if answer is no , dont try it.

I have feed my sticks Very high when testing , example a pair Gskill 1.5v @1.75v and running 2 years @1.65v now

Without any problems

[foibles 0]

Hi all,Spirit flyer pointed me to this thread to look at performance of GPU in a FSX setting as I was hesitating between a GTX 560 and GTX 580.I decided to apply some statistics analysis (multi regression) on the benchmark data for the Sandbridge processor only (I5 and I7) to find the relationship between test FPS results and system characteristics.

 

I found the following relationship in the data reported.

FPS (over Boston, vanilla clean FSX install) = (6.32 x Overclock speed) + (0.002454 * GPUpassmark) + (0.004729 x Ram speed)

Where :Overclock speed = the speed you run the processor (I5 of I7 doesn’t matter)

GPUpassmark = the video card benchmarking value found on http://www.videocard...h_end_gpus.html

Ram speed: as the name imply (1333, 1600, 1866, 2133)

 

With this relation in hand, I was able to calculate the expected gain in FPS for a 580 card over a 560 with my system specs. I was also able to calculate the gain expected from increasing ram speed or overclocking the system even more. All results below are compared to base case and only one option at the time (no combination).

 

base case GTX 560, OC = 4.50, GPUpassmark = 2744, RAM =1866, FPS formula = 44.0

Option GTX 580, OC = 4.50, GPU = 3909, RAM = 1866, FPS formula = 46.9, Gain over base = 6.5%

Option Ram at 2133, OC = 4.50, GPU = 2744, RAM = 2133, FPS formula = 45.3, Gain over base = 2.9%

Overclock + 0.1 Mhz, OC = 4.60, GPU = 2744, RAM = 1866, FPS formula = 44.6, Gain over base = 1.4%

 

So I can expect a gain in speed of 6.5% from a switch from GTX 560 to GTX 580, 2.9% from fitting a ram at 2133 Mhz vs 1866 Mhz and about 1.4% gain for each 0.1 Mhz overclock frequency added.... The results are just considering FPS, not others improvement in quality of image (less shattering, blurring etc..)

 

Conclusion: I agree taht the GPU is a significant factor in the performance of any new rig....

 

This analysis (t and P-factor) revealed that the processor type is not statistically significant, neither the ram latency. The SSD also didn’t show a significant improvement statistically (which seems impossible for me as the SSD is such an improvement in game loading speed, but maybe it have less effect in flight). The SSD effect may also not shown due to the fact that there is a relationship in the data (observed by inspection) between overclocking and SSD purchase. The people that tend to overclock a lot also purchase SSD so a statistical analysis cannot differentiate the two causes and the effect of SSD is somewhat blended in the OC multiplication factor in the equation....

 

Pierre

(edited)

 

Pierre,

Fantastic!

One question I have though:

Where you wrote 'about 1.4% gain for each 0.1 MHz overclock frequency added,' did you actually intend that to be 'for each 0.1 GHz overclock frequency added'?

[fxsttcb 1]

This is when she was on air. It runs about 10-11C cooler wet.

 

 

 

Higher resolution wasn't that much of a penalty

 

 

[foibles 0]

Fxsttcb, interesting results.

 

A couple of questions:

Aren't you worried at all about such a high vcore? (Or does that chip tolerate higher temps better than a regular ol' Sandy Bridge?)

 

And are you really running 8 RAM modules, or was that a typo?

[VeryBumpy 272]

 

 

 

Needs faster memory then frame rates should 10% higher.

[kama2004 74]

(edited)

 

Pierre,

Fantastic!

One question I have though:

Where you wrote 'about 1.4% gain for each 0.1 MHz overclock frequency added,' did you actually intend that to be 'for each 0.1 GHz overclock frequency added'?

 

Exact, the relationship if for increment of 0.1 Ghz.... It's a typo from my side...

 

Thanks for pointing it to me...

 

Pierre

[fxsttcb 1]

foibles, et al,

As noted the temps are much lower now, running wet. That was benched and tweaked with a spare Hyper 212+. It now resides in the case fitted with a 360mm rad and 6 fans in push-pull.

~70C peak Prime95 Lg FFTs, overnight, @ 50% fan speed(quiet enough). If I cook that 3820, I'll grab another one! It is simply a cheaper, interim chip, while waiting for IB-E.

 

RAM is indeed 8 x 8GB of Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 Cas 9 with a mild overclock. 48GB is used for the Qsoft RAMDisk, leaving 16 GB for the system.

On my last rig I saw quite the noticeable reduction in stuttering when I moved to an SSD, so, when I budgeted this one, I went for the 64GB to accomplish a RAMDisk experiment..

The -1600 is ~$500 cheaper, keeping experimentation costs down. If my RAMDisk had shown another step up vs an SSD I would have eventually gone with the $800 DDR3-2400.

I may yet, when IB-E arrives.

 

I posted my SSD vs RAMdisk test results(FSXMark07) here: http://www.flightsim...sk-vs-SSD-tests

[paul123 5]

Has anyone got a working link to FSMark11 ? The original post from dropbox does not seem to work anymore.

Thanks

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Thanks for the heads up Paul,

 

I'll write Corey and see if he can upload another copy of the FSXMark11 benchmark test.

 

Kind regards,

[paul123 5]

Thanks Steve, appreciate your help.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

I got ahold of Corey Meeks and he said he will fix our wagon tonight! :good:

 

Thank you Corey for your contribution to this hobby and your help in maintaining these vital links.

 

Kind regards,

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Srdan,

 

Thanks for that. Corey will fix the program link itself this evening, so it should not be a problem.I will email Corey's email address to you.

 

Kind regards,

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Word Not Allowed,

 

The spread sheet URL does not work on the opening post. Please send me the link and I will put it in.

 

Kind reply,

[cmeeks 8]

Sorry for the issues guys! I did some reorganization of my dropbox folders the other day and didn't even think about the FSXMark11 files being linked there. Looks like you guys quickly got the links repaired. The link in my signature is also functional again. I'm glad to provide a stable trustworthy environment to host such files and will be more careful with this next time.

 

Regards,

Corey