FSXMark11

[westman 257]

Dont now , this give a clue anyway how hardware react on fsx p3d esp Its basic the same engine in all of them.

Then It up to the user to tune his system as he want.

 

Have some spare time , run a test at 4.5ghz with 3000mhz mems it was in phase with DecendDecends result.

Then 4.9 with A290X.

 

Did a clean install of W7 and a vannila Fsx to run a 5960X and the same 980.

Run bclk 127 4.45ghz and 4.7ghz with 3000mhz cl15 mems.

 

If it is of intrest a can publish them.

[mpknemo 0]

Dont now , this give a clue anyway how hardware react on fsx p3d esp Its basic the same engine in all of them.

Then It up to the user to tune his system as he want.

 

Have some spare time , run a test at 4.5ghz with 3000mhz mems it was in phase with DecendDecends result.

Then 4.9 with A290X.

 

Did a clean install of W7 and a vannila Fsx to run a 5960X and the same 980.

Run bclk 127 4.45ghz and 4.7ghz with 3000mhz cl15 mems.

 

If it is of intrest a can publish them.

 

Please publish if you can, I think it's very interesting to see!

 

Markus

[JDWalley 354]

Finished my long-planned Skylake build.  First, here are the results at stock speed:

 

 

Then, after overclocking it to a rock-steady 4.7 GHz:

 

 

Maybe not the highest numbers I've ever seen but, considering my previous machine was an AMD build with an average score of 21.0, I'm quite happy!

[gboz 157]

Finished my long-planned Skylake build.  First, here are the results at stock speed:

 

Then, after overclocking it to a rock-steady 4.7.

 

Maybe not the highest numbers I've ever seen but, considering my previous machine was an AMD build with an average score of 21.0, I'm quite happy!

 

 

4.7 is pretty good for Skylake.

What cooler are you using?

 

Thanks,

gb.

[JDWalley 354]

4.7 is pretty good for Skylake.

What cooler are you using?

 

I'm using the Noctua NH-D14 air cooler -- I'm pretty sure I could push the system to 4.8 if I wanted, but at the cost of raising the VCore closer to its recommended limit of 1.40-1.42.  For the moment, I'm quite happy with 4.7 while running at a relatively-low 1.325, which shouldn't have a negative effect on my CPU's longevity.

[westman 257]

Nice, your CPU is a good one .

You can do a fast test , if it boot to win at 5ghz with 1.325v Its a really good CPU .

Only 4-10% boot in win with less than 1.35v 60% dont boot in at 5ghz even with +1,5v

[dincusor 0]

Hi ! It seams the venetubo link doesn't work. Is there other option?

[SAAB340 28]

I've been busy running FSXmark11 on my 6700K today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted a separate thread about it here

[westman 257]

Did a test with team 3866 on Asus Hero VIII the mems was not compatible with the bios a use, made my own Memprofile for cl16 1.45v

 

Hardware Configuration:

 

CPU: Intel 6700K@5.0Ghz

 

RAM: 2x4GB DDR4 3866 Team 16-18-18-28-1T

 

GPU: GTX 980 Strix OC

 

HDD: Samsung SSD

 

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
 20056,    300000,  40,  88, 66.853
 19653,    300000,  40,  88, 65.510
 19880,    300000,  40,  88, 66.267

 

                                       AVG 66.2

 

 

Here is a Hawell-E result

 

Hardware Configuration:

 

CPU: Intel 5960X @4.625ghz

 

RAM: 4x4GB DDR4 3200 CL13

 

GPU: GTX 980 Strix OC

 

HDD: Samsung SSD

 

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
 16695,    300000,  34,  79, 55.650
 16273,    300000,  34,  77, 54.243
 16323,    300000,  33,  77, 54.410

 

                                       AVG 54.8

[npalokan 0]

Got my Windows messed up quite badly so reinstalled it. And finally got change to do FSXMARK11, so here are the results.

 

 

disabling all traffic makes it already better...

  8530,    300000,  22,  35, 28.4

 

...and after some more optimizing I got results of (much like Kostas settings mixed with RotationFSX settings ).

 11440,    300000,  29,  46, 38.1

 

So it's playable again, wondering what it's after addon installations

 

edit: And it's FSX Steam Edition

[npalokan 0]

Oh there's mistake in my earlier message, it's ofcourse GTX 960, not GSX

 

But hey, I upgraded hardware and made a little overclocking, so...

[dakotaw 0]

Hardware Configuration:     
CPU: Intel i3 6100 stock    
RAM: 2x8GB 2133 (ddr4)    
GPU: MSI R7 260 1gb GDDR5    
HDD: Western Digital generic 500gb    
     
FSXMark11 Results:     
Test Frames  Time (ms)  Min  Max  Avg
2 12707 300000 12.0 57.0 42.4
3 12894 300000 30.0 56.0 43.0
4 13283 300000 32.0 56.0 44.3
AVG 12961 300000 24.7 56.3 43.2

 

I'm impressed how well this little chip works... I believe right now my GPU is the bottleneck, so I am looking to replace that ASAP, it will be cool to see what it can do with a proper graphics card. I got it for almost 30% cheaper than the fx 8350 sells for, and it absolutely destroys it as far as FSX performance. Just from a quick glance at the other sky lake chips, more specifically the i5's and i7's, it seems to be not stray all that far from their stock performance. Of course the added benefit of overclocking would be wonderful, but for those on a budget it seems wonderful.

[aerostar 42]

Hi, just wondering if these figures tie in with FSX's own system calculation that is performed at start up and entered into the FSX config as  'ProcSpeed= ----- '

 

My 2600k@5Ghz     ProcSpeed =  12056

 

(with HT 0n      - makes a diff to figures how many cores are used  - 8 cores is kinda half the figure of 4 )  

 

What ProcSpeed are you guys getting that are running superclocked new gen chips ?

 

Sometimes you have to delete the figure thats already in the config to get it to write in a new one...

 

aero

[SpiritFlyer 987]

This is a great thread that has quantified and qualified the subjective performance we feel into the objective numbers we actually realize in FSX.

 

Of course smoothness and enjoyment cannot really be measured objectively. There have been a lot of changes since we started this thread and I laid down the rules and standards to measure by. It still works, but platforms have changed beyond FSX alone for the most part.

 

Without changing anything here since that would invalidate the common standards, I suggest we start a new thread that focuses on measuring the equipment alone, without any particular flight simulation program.

 

In anticipation of a few others willing to follow suit and with the hopeful cooperation f the AVSIM staff, I will start a new thread in hopes of having same fun.

 

Kind regards,

[TechguyMaxC 516]

This is a great thread that has quantified and qualified the subjective performance we feel into the objective numbers we actually realize in FSX.

 

Of course smoothness and enjoyment cannot really be measured objectively. There have been a lot of changes since we started this thread and I laid down the rules and standards to measure by. It still works, but platforms have changed beyond FSX alone for the most part.

 

Without changing anything here since that would invalidate the common standards, I suggest we start a new thread that focuses on measuring the equipment alone, without any particular flight simulation program.

 

In anticipation of a few others willing to follow suit and with the hopeful cooperation f the AVSIM staff, I will start a new thread in hopes of having same fun.

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Someone needs to develop P3D Mark.