May 31, 201214 yr Re-ran FSXMark 11 last night after reconfiguring driver settings and FSX settings appropriately, scores back up to where I hoped they would be. Results speak for themselves: 32.3 FPS Min, 75.7 FPS Max, 54.1 FPS Avg. http://forum.avsim.net/topic/329116-fsxmark11/page__st__375
May 31, 201214 yr Yeah I did. That was not it.. Manny, Was this all using the power supply that you had connected where you ended up melting and having to cut one of the connectors off? Just curious, but maybe you'd fried something in that power supply that meant the video card wasn't actually receiving any power. Any how, hopefully you get all your parts soon! I''ve also had good experience with Amazon, I bought from them for the first time about 2-3 weeks ago. Got a Saitek Yoke/Throttle from them and it was cheaper to buy off them (even with shipping) than it was to buy at a store here in Australia!! Shipping was quick from the US as well. Anthony -Anthony Young- "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
May 31, 201214 yr Re-ran FSXMark 11 last night after reconfiguring driver settings and FSX settings appropriately, scores back up to where I hoped they would be. Results speak for themselves: 32.3 FPS Min, 75.7 FPS Max, 54.1 FPS Avg. http://forum.avsim.n...1/page__st__375 I entered your score into the chart. Just asking: you did make sure wideviewaspect was true?
May 31, 201214 yr I entered your score into the chart. Just asking: you did make sure wideviewaspect was true? You put a '3700K' as his CPU. The CPU should be labeled as '3770K'.
May 31, 201214 yr I entered your score into the chart. Just asking: you did make sure wideviewaspect was true? Yessir, after making that mistake once I wasn't about to make it again.
May 31, 201214 yr Now stress-testing at 4.8GHz. So far so good, offset up to +0.110 and temps do get back into the range for throttling, so I'm going to see if lower offset is stable. 4.9GHz is bootable but requires too much voltage for my comfort to be stable while stress-testing with IBT. With an ETI rather than TIM between the IHS and the HSF I could probably push it, but I'm not sure if I'll bother.
May 31, 201214 yr Those results are insanely good! :good: Do you think it's mainly the faster RAM and GPU overclock that's making the difference? -Anthony Young- "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
May 31, 201214 yr GPU overclock is ruled out as the diff maker, maybe those new drivers make PCIe 3.0 shine? Maybe HLJames could try them too
May 31, 201214 yr Thanks, Just read that in the FSX Mark forum too, doh! :Silly: I guess that's what happens when your reading too many threads. I'm yet to try the new drivers on my SB set up so will give that a run through FSX Mark when I can. I'm also curious whether having 16GB of RAM is in fact slowing me down so I'm also going to try removing 2 sticks to test the performance impact. These IB results are really impressive and are yielding better results than I expected. I'm just curious how much of it is actually down to the CPU or if it is in fact the PCIE3 and faster RAM that is truly leading to these results. In any case, any improvement is certainly a step in the right direction!! -Anthony Young- "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
May 31, 201214 yr I did some testing at PCIe 3.0 x8 and x16 speed and reported the results earlier in this thread back on page 8. Bottom line: x16 speed was only marginally faster if measuring FPS, though subjectively autogen/texture loading was faster.
May 31, 201214 yr That's right, I forgot you tested at different PCIE speeds. Well my testing at 8GB RAM vs 16GB RAM yielded no performance benefit either way and no defference in temps with my overclock. I had been running at 5Ghz HT off but dialled it back to 4.9Ghz HT off now on my 2600K just to lower temps slightly. The performance difference is negligible from what I can tell. I was hoping to get higher average FPS with my config but something must be holding me back. Oh the never ending quest for better performance!! TechguyMax - thanks for all the testing you've been doing! -Anthony Young- "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
June 1, 201214 yr 4.8GHz requires too much voltage for stress-testing more than say 20 minutes, dialed it back down to my stable settings at 4.7GHz and will be happy with that. Maybe some day I'll get the urge to do a true water setup and try again but the performance gains would far outweigh the cost, at least with Ivy. That being said, I could likely get an FSXMark 11 run in at 4.8GHz as that's nowhere near as stressful as Prime 95 w/AVX.
June 1, 201214 yr Today I got a GTX 680 and some G Skill Trident 2600Mhz RAM installed with my 3570K, and ran FSMark11. The CPU was OC'd to 4.6 GHz on 1.295V, and I ran the RAM at two different clock speeds. At 1600Mhz I got an average of 42.2 FPS, and at 2600Mhz, I got 47.7 FPS. This completely blows away my 2600k w/ a GTX 590, which only scored about 28-30 FPS (the 590 was terrible for FSX). I'm excited to see if I can tweak the OC any higher.
June 1, 201214 yr GPU overclock is ruled out as the diff maker, maybe those new drivers make PCIe 3.0 shine? Maybe HLJames could try them too Driver version 301.42 indeed one fps faster than 301.10! CPU: 4.7 GHz Mem: 2133 MHz, CAS9 CR2 FSXMark11: 47.56 fps avg HLJAMES
Create an account or sign in to comment