Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The 980x/990x was NOT SB, so you cannot compare a 980x to early SB models, also as we all know smoothness is not always reflected in FPS.
Uh...I don't get it. Is there a problem with what I said? If so, please explain your criticism. In FSX testing the best a 980X could show so far is in 28th spot, and a 990X is 30th.. Smoothness? Yeah sure...https://docs.google....=CMSSocoI#gid=0Kind regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Guys ,I ran the benchmark per the instructions and here are the results-I havent upgraded my video card yet as I thought FSX was more CPU dependant.Im a little dissapointed with the results especially with the OCZ running FSX.Would my results be a lot higher by upgrading my video card and maybe ram with lower timing?Thanks,Mike.


SCO001.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Guys ,I ran the benchmark per the instructions and here are the results-I havent upgraded my video card yet as I thought FSX was more CPU dependant.Im a little dissapointed with the results especially with the OCZ running FSX.Would my results be a lot higher by upgrading my video card and maybe ram with lower timing?Thanks,Mike.
Hi Mike,Thanks for running the test. Performance will always fall to the lowest common denominator in your system. It would look like the GPU is the culprit this time.Kind regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,Just wanted to update you all on some further testing. I discovered that the PMDG 747-8i was providing a 10-15FPS increase compared to other addon's and since all of my initial testing was conducted with the PMDG 747-8i, I did experience a more fluid flying experience when I initially installed FSX. However, after further testing with various addon's and FSX default aircraft, the performance is nearly identical to a 2600K processor at 4.8/5GHz. Therefore, I conclude that the assertions made by many of you, in that FSX does not utilize all of the processor cores are indeed valid. Lastly, regardless of whether 3 cores or 6 cores are active, the FPS remains the same.Jacob


Jake

Intel Core i7 4790K (5GHz; 1.40VC)

SLI-ASUS GTX 780 Poseidon 

ASUS Z97 Deluxe

P3D V 2.2 - ORBX Global+Vector; REX 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cpu: i5 2500K @ 4.6 GHzram: 2x4GB=8GB 1600 (9-9-9-24)gpu: nVidia GTX 560ti ZOTAC (384 cores) 1024MB 950MHzhdd: 1TB 7200 R.P.M.FSXMark11 Results:Test Frames Time(ms) min Max Avg.2 12085 3000000 27 53 40.283 3 11828 3000000 27 52 39.4274 11654 3000000 27 53 38.847AVG 11856 3000000 27 52.66 39.519

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Jacob, Your numbers are right in there. Are you considering upping your overclock a bit? If not 4.6Ghz is lots of speed!Kind regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to thank all who have posted here, since these benchmarking results have been very helpful to me when choosing the specs for my new FSX rig. Now that it's here, I'd like to return the favor by posting my results.This was my first run, which came out with an avg of 40.3Hardware Configuration: CPU: Intel i5-2500k @ 4.4GHz HT n/a RAM: 2x4GB 1600 (9-9-9-24-2T) GPU: EVGA GTX 570 1.5GB HDD: OCZ Agility 3 SSD FSXMark11 Results: Test Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg2 12151 300000 25 55 40.5033 12040 300000 25 55 40.1334 12082 300000 24 54 40.273AVG 12091 300000 24.7 54.7 40.3 Next, I increased to CPU overclock from 4.4 to 4.6, which bumped up the avg to 41.6 Hardware Configuration: CPU: Intel i5-2500k @ 4.6GHz HT n/a RAM: 2x4GB 1600 (9-9-9-24-2T) GPU: EVGA GTX 570 1.5GB HDD: OCZ Agility 3 SSD FSXMark11 Results: Test Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg2 12594 300000 25 56 41.983 12396 300000 26 55 41.324 12412 300000 25 56 41.373AVG 12467 300000 25.3 55.7 41.6 Finally, I changed the memory timing from 2T to 1T, which increased the Avg to 42.2 Hardware Configuration: CPU: Intel i5-2500k @ 4.6GHz HT n/a RAM: 2x4GB 1600 (9-9-9-24-1T) GPU: EVGA GTX 570 1.5GB HDD: OCZ Agility 3 SSD FSXMark11 Results: Test Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg2 12830 300000 25 57 42.7673 12479 300000 26 57 41.5974 12682 300000 25 56 42.273AVG 12664 300000 25.3 56.7 42.2Nothing spectacular, but it was good to see that my tweaks actually did make at least slight improvements in the framerates.Again, thanks for this useful benchmarking data, and I hope this helps!Keith

Edited by Pesto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keith,Thanks for your efforts and welcome to the forums! I posted your final result (42.2 avg) in the results spreadsheet. It's interesting to see that changing the memory from 2T to 1T had no effect on the minimum frame rate - only on the maximum.

Edited by cmeeks

Corey Meeks

Download: FSXMark11 Benchmark and post results here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that we are getting really consistent results that indicate the dual nature of FSX where the CPU is dominant, but is also GPU sensitive. I never expected to see such uniformity in scaling as what the evidence shows. The size of the sample is certainly documenting the real world FSX performance. I am really curious what the new 7,000 series AMD GPUs will do with FSX.Kind regards,

Edited by SpiritFlyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dell XPS 15 laptopCPU: Intel Core i7 2640M 2,8 GHzGPU: NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M 2gbMemory: 8gb 667mhzHD: 500gb 7200rpmAvg: 19.883 - Min: 12 - Max: 24 std tetsGreat laptop. I mainly use it for video editing when I'm on the road. It has a great screen with good colors and a resolution of 1920x1080. As a bonus it can also run FSX very fluidly. Allthough not as great as my FSX rig in the sig :-) I'm too lasy to reinstall FSX on my main rig for comparison.


CPU: i7-2600k (4.8GHz HT On)

Mobo: Asus P8P68 Pro

RAM: 2x4GB Corsair 1600 @ 8-8-8-24

GPU: Pny GTX 580

HDD 1: OCZ RevoDrive (Operating System)

HDD 2: Corsair SSD Force Series 3 (FSX)

PSU: Corsair AX1200w

OS: Windows 7 x64

Monitor: Dell U2410 1920x1200

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dell XPS 15 laptopCPU: Intel Core i7 2640M 2,8 GHzGPU: NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M 2gbMemory: 8gb 667mhzHD: 500gb 7200rpmAvg: 19.883 - Min: 12 - Max: 24 std tetsGreat laptop. I mainly use it for video editing when I'm on the road. It has a great screen with good colors and a resolution of 1920x1080. As a bonus it can also run FSX very fluidly. Allthough not as great as my FSX rig in the sig :-) I'm too lasy to reinstall FSX on my main rig for comparison.
Extremely impressive indeed for a laptop! Very nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a temporary upgrade today since I couldn't wait for Kepler any more and I didn't want to pay the current price for a 580 knowing it will drop when Kepler comes out, and my 5870 was getting on my nerves with all the flashing and other problems so I didn't have high hopes for the 7970 to be good at FSX.I picked up a MSI 560Ti 448 Shaders 1.280GB VRAM on sale (<$250 after rebate)http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814127615I did the FSXMark11 with the 5870 before swapping cards:Then I did the FSXMark11 with the 560Ti/448 after swapping cards (unfortunately I did 3 runs only by mistake):Needless to say I am *very* happy with the results even with the card running at stock MSI OC settings 750/1500/1950:After returning FSX from the "clean" FSXMark11 install to my usual cluttered Orbx and lots of other payware install, and setting NV Inspector settings per what has been posted here, I did my usual flight Turbine Duke from S43 and my framerate stayed at a locked 30FPS where in the 5870 it would be down in the 24FPS.Very pleased with the switch to Nvidia and the performance of this 560Ti/448 which is supposedly close to 570 performance, I plan to try and overclock it to 570 or 580 speeds and see what I can get out of it.Also glad that for now I no longer need to sweat the choice of buying a 580 knowing the price will tumble soon, or waiting for Kepler, or taking a chance with a 7970 knowing ATI doesn't tune for Shader2. Eventually when the 680 is out and available with 3+ GB VRAM I may consider upgrading but for now I am very happy with what my $250 got me.

Edited by kludger

--John near KPAE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did a temporary upgrade today since I couldn't wait for Kepler any more and I didn't want to pay the current price for a 580 knowing it will drop when Kepler comes out, and my 5870 was getting on my nerves with all the flashing and other problems so I didn't have high hopes for the 7970 to be good at FSX.I picked up a MSI 560Ti 448 Shaders 1.280GB VRAM on sale (<$250 after rebate)http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814127615I did the FSXMark11 with the 5870 before swapping cards:Then I did the FSXMark11 with the 560Ti/448 after swapping cards (unfortunately I did 3 runs only by mistake):Needless to say I am *very* happy with the results even with the card running at stock MSI OC settings 750/1500/1950:After returning FSX from the "clean" FSXMark11 install to my usual cluttered Orbx and lots of other payware install, and setting NV Inspector settings per what has been posted here, I did my usual flight Turbine Duke from S43 and my framerate stayed at a locked 30FPS where in the 5870 it would be down in the 24FPS.Very pleased with the switch to Nvidia and the performance of this 560Ti/448 which is supposedly close to 570 performance, I plan to try and overclock it to 570 or 580 speeds and see what I can get out of it.Also glad that for now I no longer need to sweat the choice of buying a 580 knowing the price will tumble soon, or waiting for Kepler, or taking a chance with a 7970 knowing ATI doesn't tune for Shader2. Eventually when the 680 is out and available with 3+ GB VRAM I may consider upgrading but for now I am very happy with what my $250 got me.
Congratulations John!Those numbers are proof of Nvidia's superiority with FSX hands down!Kind regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...