Pretty nice CPU, but still FSX is a slideshow

[t_a_h 0]

Hi,

need your help folks!

 

AMD Phenom II X4 AM3 970 BE (3.5GHz) OC 3.8GHz is what I got, the rest is in my signature!

 

Why do I have a FSX Slideshow still, while using such a nice CPU and nice not too old hardware?

 

Does it really matters upgrading to a AM3 board with DDR3 from my current DDR2 supporting mobo?

 

Cant I go nice with FSX without a nother upgrade?

 

If someone here has some nice tipp and ideas, I'd be very thankfull!

[TechguyMaxC 516]

Do you have all the FSX settings turned up (i.e. sliders "full right")? If so, there's your problem. Your CPU just isn't fast enough to handle the workload, neither is your GPU for that matter. You can either back off settings quite a bit or swap to a new Intel system and overclock the pants off of it to get the kind of performance you want. Also, if you haven't followed any of the various FSX tweak guides out there I would suggest doing so, it will help a lot.

[t_a_h 0]

well, neither Intel nor AMD gives me more GHz per CPU core. I could only upgrade to a faster RAM and Mainboard. But will that give me the needed power to run FSX with sliders maxed out? Why not? Is it still true after so long time FSX got released that still there is not any hardware to buy with a normal income which can cope with the need of this simulator?

[dazz 69]

well, neither Intel nor AMD gives me more GHz per CPU core. I could only upgrade to a faster RAM and Mainboard. But will that give me the needed power to run FSX with sliders maxed out? Why not? Is it still true after so long time FSX got released that still there is not any hardware to buy with a normal income which can cope with the need of this simulator?

 

It doesn't work like that Torben.

 

Clock speed is just one factor, Intel CPU's run MUCH faster than AMD's at the same clock speed because of their more efficient architecture.

Also you can safely overclock other CPU's much higher than what a Phenom II is capable of.

 

An example, I5 2500K at 4GHz is like a 50% faster than a Phenom II @ 4GHz.

Considering you are still on a DDR2 platform that's another 10-15% perf drop.

 

All in all, an upgrade to and overclocked I5 2500K or 3570K would yield about twice as much FPS than your current system. Of course you would need a new mobo, CPU & RAM, but it wouldn't set you back more than 400€

[smokeyupahead 6]

All in all, an upgrade to and overclocked I5 2500K or 3570K would yield about twice as much FPS than your current system. Of course you would need a new mobo, CPU & RAM, but it wouldn't set you back more than 400€

Don't believe anyone who claim such high performance gains.

I have an Amd 965 BE clocked at 4 ghz on a ddr2 motherboard and I am running fsx very smoothly with all of the addons you can imagine and at high graphic quality.

You can easily break the 4ghz barrier if you get a good cooler like I did.

If you haven't done so yet use the Bojotes configuration tool to fine tune your fsx and I'm sure your system will run even better than mine.

I know it takes some fiddling but once you find the correct settings you will not have to touch them anymore.

 

 

David DD

[dazz 69]

That is bull....!

Don't believe anyone who claim such high performance gains.

I have an Amd 965 BE clocked at 4 ghz on a ddr2 motherboard and I am running fsx very smoothly with all of the addons you can imagine and at high graphic quality.

You can easily break the 4ghz barrier if you get a good cooler like I did.

If you haven't done so yet use the Bojotes configuration tool to fine tune your fsx and I'm sure your system will run even better than mine.

I know it takes some fiddling but once you find the correct settings you will not have to touch them anymore.

 

 

David DD

 

I don't need to believe anyone, I used to own a 965BE and a 1090T at 4GHz

I know first hand what I'm talking about and benchmarks are all over the interweb for you to check David.

 

A 4.7GHz Sandy Bridge is like a 70-80% faster than a 4GHz Phenom II

Considering he's on a DDR2 platform and 3.8GHz, yes, a 100% faster or twice as fast

[smokeyupahead 6]

When we speak about performance in fsx benchmarks don't mean everything to me.

You are telling the man that if he upgrades to an Intel Cpu he will double his performance, which is not true!

I run fsx very smoothly, and there is no doubt that he can do better with his system without the need to spend more money.

I'm not saying that AMD is better than Intel, personally I couldn't care less.

I know that Intel have better performance but not double like you said in the case of the I5 you mention.

 

 

 

David DD

[dazz 69]

which is not true!

 

it is true

 

http://www.anandtech...duct/186?vs=551

 

yeah, that's an I7 3770K instead of an I5... doesn't matter, look at the single threaded benchmarks

 

like Cinebench, 4000 vs 7000 points, and that's without OC

 

and once again, I have benched Phenom II 's in FSX and my current systems is twice as fast, or pretty close. I'm not saying you can't run FSX on a Phenom II, just stating the facts

[PaulM 1]

I tested my fsx installation in a exactly the same rig as mine, except that it was an phenom 2 965 4ghz and memory was 1600. Qw 757 on 31r jfk for take off, fsx settings is at the high end side and 40 for traffic.. Moving the view at vc the ph2 was in 12 fps and i was

On 25 fps more or less. I didnt any more test but from a quick test, an 2500k @ 4.5 can be, perfectly, 100% faster.

Tapatalk2, Samsung Galaxy Note.

[smokeyupahead 6]

Hi PaulM,

Would you mine posting a screen shot with the ngx at an addon airport with cloudy weather and fsx settings on the high side?

 

 

David DD

[SpiritFlyer 987]

When we speak about performance in fsx benchmarks don't mean everything to me.

You are telling the man that if he upgrades to an Intel Cpu he will double his performance, which is not true!

 

David,

 

It's good to see that your rig is tuned to your satisfaction now. However, with all due respect, you are entirely mistaken in your conclusions. Dario is right, perhaps even politely understating his case. Like it or not, all objective evaluations shows that common modern Intel equipment has something like a doubling of FSX performance over that of common AMD platforms.

 

Fact is, Intel is still increasingly pulling away from AMD in FSX performance. It has already reached well over 100% improvement over Torben's equipment, and nearer to 150% advantage in some cases. In FSX, evenly spaced FPS quantity equals quality of smoothness as well. These are facts.

 

Comparing the latest AMD against the latest Intel gives little room for comfort, let alone an older AMD Phenom 11 x4. In fact the highest AMD benchmark recorded in FSX Mark 11 is 22.1 FSP with a similiarly performing* CPU (AMD x6 1075T), whereas most Intel K models average between 45-50ish FPS.

 

Unsubstantiated performance claims can be misleading, and frankly, no longer paid much attention to in these here parts. If you are confident in your statements, then run the Mark 11 Benchmark and prove them accurate. Otherwise what you say falls into the "We heard it all before" catagory.

 

In any case Torben (and Dazz and David), thanks for allowing me to butt in.

 

*http://www.anandtech...duct/186?vs=185

 

Kind regards,

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Hi Torben,

 

In addition to the RAM issues identified by Dario, your GPU is also insufficient for smooth FSX performance at anything except very modest settings. Wish we could be more encouraging, but you at least deserve the truth when asking straight up.

 

Kind regards,

[t_a_h 0]

very faszinating! Well, I aint got 400€ loos in my hand. But with about straight 60% all sliders to the right, I run FSX at EDDH with the latest Aerosoft Scenery of EDDH at the ground with about 15 to 20 FPS and when airborn, I fly with about 40 to 50 FPS with a FT A320.

 

That was just tested after updating drivers and throwing in some tweaks I found.

 

Flying FS9 is a pure joy with my rig. And for FS9 I got the most addons someone can get for money.

 

So, if I have the option to spent about 400€ sometime in the future, I will go for a i7 or whatever is up-to-date then. But for now I am quite happy with what I got. See, I aint have so much spare time to fly for hours and enjoying what I already got. So for 400€ I can buy things I have even more joy with and enjoying it together with my wife. Life has been different before 2009 when I married my wife... now we rather spending time together than that I am lost at my PC for hours.

 

But anyway, thanx for explaining to me why a Intel based setup may be better than AMD.

[Kosta 122]

I will also chime in here:

 

I can also fully agree with Dario, double performance can be expected, as I experienced it even with a first -> 2nd gen i7, albeit highly overclocked SB, but my 1st gen was also running at 4.2, and a change from gtx285 to gtx580.

 

All that said, I think the OP can't expect much of a perfomance out of his computer, which simply isn't optimal hardware for FSX. It will never be - lots of compromises must be made to get a satisfying performance.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

But for now I am quite happy with what I got. See, I aint have so much spare time to fly for hours and enjoying what I already got. So for 400€ I can buy things I have even more joy with and enjoying it together with my wife. Life has been different before 2009 when I married my wife... now we rather spending time together than that I am lost at my PC for hours.

 

That is far more worthwhile and satisfying than any PC, at any frame rate. You are a blessed man for making such a good choice.

 

Kind regards,