You're not using standardized settings so you can't draw a comparison. You're not really stressing the CPU so your conclusion is based on a false premise. Put up some FSX Mark results then we'll talk.

then we'll talk.

 

Are you going to correct my speling too?

 

You're not using standardized settings so you can't draw a comparison. You're not really stressing the CPU so your conclusion is based on a false premise. Put up some FSX Mark results then we'll talk.

 

I'm not stressing the CPU cause I'm not using A.I traffic? Well FSX Mark11 doesn't use A.I traffic so that won't be stressing the CPU either.

 

Please respond.

 

I'm not stressing the CPU cause I'm not using A.I traffic? Well FSX Mark11 doesn't use A.I traffic so that won't be stressing the CPU either.

 

Please respond.

 

They're two different statements, hence the use of punctuation to separate them. The point of me asking you to run FSX Mark is to have a fair basis for comparison, it is not linked to my other statement.

You're not using standardized settings so you can't draw a comparison. You're not really stressing the CPU so your conclusion is based on a false premise. Put up some FSX Mark results then we'll talk.

 

Exactly what I've said all along. I never tried to discredit AMD. - I simply would like a fair comparison, not a swayed "AMD is great! (without benchmarks)" kind of post.

 

Are you going to correct my speling too?

 

 

LOL :LMAO:

Exactly what I've said all along. I never tried to discredit AMD. - I simply would like a fair comparison, not a swayed "AMD is great! (without benchmarks)" kind of post.

 

Again, when did he ever compare anything? He didn't. You two keep blabbing about comparing performance when there was never any comparison to begin with. Give it up.

Again, when did he ever compare anything? He didn't. You two keep blabbing about comparing performance when there was never any comparison to begin with. Give it up.

 

I didn't mean to insinuate in my post that he needed to compare to anything. - I am saying that it is fair to provide EVIDENCE for your claims... Not just SAYING that your system performs 'well'.

Lighten up. All trev wanted to do was give his review on how it performs on his system. So since you are the hall monitor of the thread let me say something also. Do you act like this in the real world? Like for real, do you just listen in on somebody talking and then when they say something that is one apple less from the tree off you go on a hysterical diaper wetting tantrum? Sorry that trev is having good performance and I'm suspecting that you might be a little rustled. Come here and let me straighten out those jimmies.

 

Considering that this is a public forum, I think the scenario is a bit different... Here, when someone posts saying "XXX is great" without providing good evidence for those claims, you should *expect* forum users to point that out to you.

 

Also, with the Ad Hominem Attacks, you should be very careful. They can get you a nice 'ole permaban.

Wideloadwhit,

 

Cool it with your personal attacks. Your last post has been removed and you will not be able to participate further in this thread. Don't do this again.

 

Kind regards,

What is FSX performance? FPS only? FSXmark11 is not a good way to compare CPUs with different amount of cores. I remember posting a suggestion and asking for inputs for a pure CPU architecture benchmark but I can only remember Dazz as being the only one interested in trying it. There are a lot of loud voices regarding i5s vs i7s, AMD vs Intel, SandyBridge vs IvyBridge. Would it not be good if we found a good way to actually compare them in FSX?

 

To the OP: What affinity mask do you use? Is it 254? It would be interesting to see how Bulldozers modules work in FSX in comparison to Intels HT. What happens to the FPS if you use AffinityMask=255? Does the FPS dip every 61 seconds when the other threads peak?

 

One thing is for sure. AMD offers more 'cores' for a lot less money than Intel. More cores=faster texture loading and load times in FSX. But also lower FPS. But in some scenarios FPS is not the most important factor.

 

How does AffinityMask=14 vs AffinityMask=11 work on bulldozer? Is there quite a bit of FPS loss using 11?

himynameistrev,

Thanks for your post! It was good information to know and learn from.

Thanks again :dance:

i have a 8120 running at 4.2ghz n a Diamond HD 7870 what setting do u use here are my specs

 

Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 AMD 990FX AM3+ Motherboard, AMD FX-8120 X8 3100MHZ 16MB 125W AM3+, Sony Optiarc 24X DVDRW SATA OEM, WD Caviar Blue 1TB SATA HD 7200/32MB/SATA-6G, Corsair Vengeance LP 8GB PC12800 DDR3 1600MHz 2x4, Thermaltake Overseer RX-I Full Tower Gaming Case, DIAMOND 7870PE52G Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler for i5, i7, 775 and AMD, COOLMAX ZP-750B APFC/V2.3/EPS12V/V2.92 80+ BRONZE

I'm running an amd fx8350 @4.96ghz with a gtx770 @1384mhz/3505mhz and with Nick n bible tweaks I get 44fps max 21fps min and 33fps avg. fsx mark11. that's on the second run after fsx is opened so the textures are already stored in the memory.

 

Next week I'm upgrading to a 4790k and oc the nads out of it like the fx because it will also be custom watercooled like the gtx770 and he will have a twin next him next week as well then I'm going to re run the tests again.

Heck it works than it works why bother.

 

I used to run Fsx on a FX 6300 at stock with stock scenery except a few freeones and full settings no issues superb.