FSXMark11

[ryanbatc 12,812]

Alrighty, I never ran a bench on my old system (it's taken me two days to get this one running lol)But I did do it per the instructions on the rig in my sigHardware Configuration:CPU: Intel Core i5 2500K @ stockRAM: 2x4GB 1866 MHz (9-10-9-27-1T)GPU: EVGA GTX 570 1280 MBHDD: 120GB Mushkin Callisto SSD (achi/intel RST drivers)Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg8856 300000 5 42 29.52I have so many other things to take care of but I swore I would do this test for Corey.... so here it is lol!

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Finally, my RMAed FSX SSD arrived from G.Skill so I uninstalled and reinstalled FSX and ran the Test exactly as per the FSXMark11 test specifications, as follows:Hardware ConfigurationCPU: Intel i7-2600K @ 5.0GHz HT OffRAM: 4x2GB 1600 (6-8-6-24-2T)GPU: Zotac 580GTX OC @ 900MHzHHD: G.Skill FM-25S2S 120GBP2 SSDFSXMark11 Results:Test----Frames--Time(ms0--Min----Max----Avg2-------14320---300000----27-----64-----47.7333-------14113---300000----29-----63-----47.0434-------14126---300000----27-----63-----47.087-----------------------------------------------AVG--14186---300000----27.67-----63.33-----47.287Average 47.287 FPSNow to reload all my payware scenery and aircraft over the next couple of days and get back to flying with my friends with the Back Country Prop Club!Kind Regards,

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Alrighty, I never ran a bench on my old system (it's taken me two days to get this one running lol)But I did do it per the instructions on the rig in my sigHardware Configuration:CPU: Intel Core i5 2500K @ stockRAM: 2x4GB 1866 MHz (9-10-9-27-1T)GPU: EVGA GTX 570 1280 MBHDD: 120GB Mushkin Callisto SSD (achi/intel RST drivers)Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg8856 300000 5 42 29.52I have so many other things to take care of but I swore I would do this test for Corey.... so here it is lol!

When you have it overclocked it will be even better. What are your plans?Kind regards,

[ryanbatc 12,812]

When you have it overclocked it will be even better. What are your plans?Kind regards,

I plan on OCing. Honestly I'm a bit apprehensive about it. For a few reasons:1) No simple cmos clear switch on my mobo, need to use the jumper...2) To dig my case out from under the desk is no easy task, then I have to pull out the video card to access the battery3) I doubt my wife would let me drop another 200+ bucks on a new CPU if it dies while OCing4) My bios is already finicky with some of my initial ram settings, I need to get that squared away (gurus please watch for my new post, I need some BIOS help)5) Need to give the cpu a few weeks and let the thermal paste do its thing.

[Kosta 122]

My result:

[whitav8 98]

I'm surprised that Word Not Allowed can surpass Stephen's and HLJames's results with less CPU clock speed and slower memory.

[DescendDescend 25]

I'm surprised that Word Not Allowed can surpass Stephen's and HLJames's results with less CPU clock speed and slower memory.

Maybe HT has more effect than we expected.

[Kosta 122]

I'm surprised that Word Not Allowed can surpass Stephen's and HLJames's results with less CPU clock speed and slower memory.

Yes, I was quite surprised. My first test was terrible, around 41, but then ran those 2-4 tests, and it was kicking just above 50fps in each test. Unbelievable :Party:

Maybe HT has more effect than we expected.

Maybe but my AffinityMask is set to 84, so telling FSX anyway to use only main cores 2-4. Omit first...

[ppo 67]

Yes, I was quite surprised. My first test was terrible, around 41, but then ran those 2-4 tests, and it was kicking just above 50fps in each test. Unbelievable :Party:Maybe but my AffinityMask is set to 84, so telling FSX anyway to use only main cores 2-4. Omit first...

Maybe HT... or maybe the memory speed. Word Not Allowed has them running at 1866.Pierre

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Yes, I was quite surprised. My first test was terrible, around 41, but then ran those 2-4 tests, and it was kicking just above 50fps in each test. Unbelievable :Party:

Are you sure it was set up exactly as per test requirments with Bejote's auto-tool downloaded CFG file, without alteration whatsoever? There is no magic in these things, as everything has a relatively predictable mathematical outcome based upon equipment, speed, and settings. Not saying you did anything wrong, but just making absolutely sure.

Maybe but my AffinityMask is set to 84, so telling FSX anyway to use only main cores 2-4. Omit first...

Word Not Allowed, I just checked and 84 is not a standard Bejote Affinity Mask setting. If you have any setting other that what Bejote's program stipulates, as per benchmark standard procedures, including Affinity Mask, you have changed the performance characteristics of your computer for the test, thereby rendering such test corrupted and invalidated. Did you make other alterations or adjustments as well?Kind regards,

[Kosta 122]

Are you sure it was set up exactly as per test requirments with Bejote's auto-tool downloaded CFG file, without alteration whatsoever? There is no magic in these things, as everything has a relatively predictable mathematical outcome based upon equipment, speed, and settings. Not saying you did anything wrong, but just making absolutely sure.

I am very positive that I did not do ANY changes to my fsx.cfg after Bojote's tool changed it.

Word Not Allowed, I just checked and 84 is not a standard Bejote Affinity Mask setting. If you have any setting other that what Bejote's program stipulates, as per benchmark standard procedures, including Affinity Mask, you have changed the performance characteristics of your computer for the test, thereby rendering such test corrupted and invalidated. Did you make other alterations or adjustments as well?Kind regards,

No. Absolutely not. I followed the benchmark to the letter. I made one little mistake at first, included tests 1-2-3 instead of 2-3-4. That is why first was lower, 48fps.And btw. Bojote's tool set 84 for my CPU - with HT enabled.And if you think I did any other changes, then check the result in the other thread with all the tweaks by myself, which show that if I load up everything else, scenery and IQ, I get also around 50, meaning that tweaks help a lot in my case.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

I am very positive that I did not do ANY changes to my fsx.cfg after Bojote's tool changed it.No. Absolutely not. I followed the benchmark to the letter. I made one little mistake at first, included tests 1-2-3 instead of 2-3-4. That is why first was lower, 48fps.And btw. Bojote's tool set 84 for my CPU - with HT enabled.And if you think I did any other changes, then check the result in the other thread with all the tweaks by myself, which show that if I load up everything else, scenery and IQ, I get also around 50, meaning that tweaks help a lot in my case.

Thanks Word Not Allowed,In that case I think I will enable HT and adopt the 84 setting. I did not realize that Bejote recommended that in your case. Thanks for the information. I will give it a try too! Kind regards,

[HLJames 2,568]

Good Job Word Not Allowed!Intel Core i7-2600K @ 5.2 GHzAsus P8P67-DG.SKILL Ripjaws-X,4G, 2133 MHz (7-10-7-27-1T)EVGA GTX 580WD Velociraptor X2, RAID0, 1.09TB, Promise Fast Trak TX-2300Enermax Galaxy 1000 WBlack Ice Extreme / Laing D5 / Apogee XT / feser oneWindows 7 HP-64bit

[Kosta 122]

Thanks Word Not Allowed,In that case I think I will enable HT and adopt the 84 setting. I did not realize that Bejote recommended that in your case. Thanks for the information. I will give it a try too! Kind regards,

Alright, let us know! And btw... its Bojote rather than Bejote. :)

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Alright, let us know! And btw... its Bojote rather than Bejote. :)

Thanks Kasto, what is a few misplaced vewols among freinds?Kind ragerds,Edit: I can not rerun the FSXMark11 test, as I have reloaded all my payware etc., so I can not do a direct comparison between HT on and not. However, a run with HT turned on at 4.8Ghz with an AffinityMask setting of 84 subjectively seems to be as fast and smooth as when at non HT 5.0 with an AM of 14. Perhaps someone with a virginal FSX install can test it both ways as a direct comparison.Stephen