I thought you said you were seeing up to 40% increase in performance now that you had re-installed Windows 7. Don't you think those previously bodged upgrades without properly reinstalling Windows has some bearing on that. I'll put money on it that's the main reason why you're seeing the performance increase now.

I thought you said you were seeing up to 40% increase in performance now that you had re-installed Windows 7

 

You are misquoting me. I was seeing up to 40% more performance out of P3D, in comparison to FSX. One scenario in particular, FSX 48FPS, P3D 73FPS, with a whole lot of autogen.

This has nothing to do with my Windows 7 reinstall now.

 

Don't you think those previously bodged upgrades without properly reinstalling Windows has some bearing on that.

 

What previously bodged upgrades, and why are you saying "without properly reinstalling Windows"? My Windows was very properly installed, the reasons for reinstall are completely FSX-independable.

 

I'll put money on

 

Okay, how much? :lol:

I did misunderstand you in the other post, fair enough, but if you want to live in a dream world where you think Windows 7 is infallible when it comes to in place hardware upgrades then I won't wake you up :lazy: :P

 

I do admit that W7 is certainly far more resilient than Vista and XP was, but it still won't run as well as it would if you do a fresh install on new hardware, especially if it's a new motherboard and CPU.

Andy, I think you are exaggerating. I will not dispute that freshly installed OS is the best thing, but saying performance is suffering after upgrade by just not reinstalling is absurd. Of course taken into account that you know what you are doing, installing correct drivers, deleting appropriate files etc.

 

I do have benchies from my old installation, now in the new one, I'm gonna run the same situation in P3D (FSX is not installed any more) and see how it performs.

Absurd hey, who is exaggerating now, I've been doing this for the past 27 years and experience tells me that a clean install is always better no matter how good you think you are with cleaning drivers, HAL's, the registry.... Believe me its far easier in the long run to start again than it is to BODGE an install of new hardware onto an old OS install, end of story.

We both are.

I've had that opinion couple of years back. But last two upgrades I went through non-reinstall and all was well. My system was performing well.

The reason for the reinstall was only that my systray icons weren't loading on boot. I would have to log off and log back on. I could have also created new user and also be done with it.

But my FSX/P3D performance or anything else wasn't suffering a bit. My system is now with all programs loaded as "slow" as it was before I reinstalled, with a difference that systray icons are normally loading.

I was looking into solution to that for a long time and when I couldn't fix it, I was pushed towards reinstall. It is a PAIN with 350 install entries in the uninstaller.

FS Add-on reinstalls are always the bain of our existence, its worth it in the long run though. I'll be keeping my P3D install lean and mean so as to keep that reinstall regime a far bit simpler when the next update is due. 1.4 has come a long way from 1.2 or whatever that last version was I deved on. The lighting is so much better now too, apart from the over done colour change when moving the view point at dusk and dawn.

That's the only thing majorly boring me are the reinstalls with P3D. I'll live with it for now.

 

But see it like this: I would not have done the whole ordeal if I wasn't jumping ship now from FSX to P3D. I would have rather lived with that systray problem, since my FSX was performing as admirably as FSX only can. And everything else was working quite well.

 

I'll give you one right though: better in a long run - yes.

Hi,

This is very good news. 10% up from IB may not seem an awful lot, but then again, Intel has no real competition at the moment..

 

Yet, I´m still on a six-core Phenom II that runs FSX surprisingly well with proper settings (and a 1½ year old daughter leaving few hours for simming anyways..) – so I´ll wait till 2013 and go for a Haswell rig.

Another thing holding me back from and eventual upgrade to IB now, are the zillion hours needed to reinstall everything.. and once I´m done with that, Broadwell is out and hot, and then I can start all over again.. Or is Broadwell also using 1150 socket?

 

 

Best Regards,

Anders

Or is Broadwell also using 1150 socket?

 

I am not exactly sure... But I do know with die shrinks, you typically loose overclocking performance due to the architecture being the same but on a smaller fabrication process.

 

From what I have heard from some internal sources on other forums, Haswell should be a better overclocker than Ivy Bridge due to the maturity of the 22nm process and a better thermal design. Intel has discussed this with internal groups and they have pretty much garunteed an improved OC'ing chip.

 

Once Intel moves down to 14nm, we will likely loose OC performance again similarily to SB --> IB.

 

Personally, I think it would be most practical to wait for Haswell to come around. - If they are good OCers, then It would make sense to build a system with one. Or, you could wait for Broadwell and if they are 'duds' you could still pick up a Haswell CPU and stick with that. :smile:

 

Sorry for such a rant lol...

You really don't need to reload when swapping motherboards, especially not when going from one Intel chip to another. Win 7 is smart enough to figure things out.

 

I had no idea - always thought it was a given that you had to do a reinstall after a Motherboard swap.

 

I'll probably still wind up reinstalling for my Haswell build, since at that point I'll likely be moving from my HDDs to SSDs. My current setup runs the HDDs through a 3Ware RAID card (as JBOD, not RAID). Performance is great but that's an exotic setup that isn't always supremely friendly to hardware swaps (they're manageable but painful), so SSDs on SATA are probably my future... or a PCIe SSD if I win the lottery...

But I do know with die shrinks, you typically loose overclocking performance due to the architecture being the same but on a smaller fabrication process.

 

 

Makes sense, though that wasn't my experience going from Bloomfield (965x) to Westmere (980x) - the 980 was a much better overclocker. I'm assuming they solved other problems related to temperature or voltage - or maybe it's just that I lucked out with the second processor.

Is it me or do you guys get burned out from constant upgrades?

 

I made sure not to get on that merry-go-round some years ago....

 

Used to play computer chess (computer vs. computer) where hardware was basically one of two major factors in winning (or drawing) the game. Built a quad opteron in 2006 (amd 2x285) then skulltrail in 2008 (2 x qx9775). 2 graphic card updates... some better drives... that has been it until today.

 

I'm saving my PC fund for the next "big" break through... Or the next time I break something "big"... Or maybe a DC-3 type rating. Idk

 

I am there man... wanted to spend the least possible for this current upgrade. I would not even be upgrading now but the opteron mb (tyan S2895) ruptured a capacitor.

 

I want the computer fund to become the flight fund for next year... and just like you... thinking of a DC-3 type rating. This place looks quite interesting: http://dc3training.com/type-rating/

Some info about Haswell and overclocking here.

As always, if [CPU] it is not in your hands [mobo more specifically] or tested by trustworthy individuals or sites you cannot tell. And is not only o/c that counts. These are power draw and temps (and recently thermal interface material)

Edited September 21, 201213 yr by SLKVP