Hello ppl,

I was totally disapponted when i realized that in KFJK with the lightweight plane i got 15 fps @ 3.0ghz, and same 15 fps @4.0ghz.

 

I think i will give up trying to make out the best from FSX. It is a challenge full of nonsenses and conflicts.

 

By the way, cpu is QX9650......

What's your video card?

It had my CPU at 5GHz, but it didn't do much of a difference, and certainly not enough to push my system into a potential breakdown, so I'm back at stock speed. My standard New York benchmark flight improved with 3-4 fps on average.

@ skiboj GTX295.

not that good, but nor that poor...

 

@ Simmerhead i see

simmerhead, did it made sense to you in some way?...

I'm no hardware expert, but having just bought a new video card and done a bit of homework beforehand, I'd say that card probably isn't doing justice to the rest of your system and you should be looking at something in the 650+ range.

 

Feel free to take this with a pinch of salt though, but it did jump out at me because I think the 295 is one of the cards I could have got for much less than what I ended up paying but which I rejected due to potential bottlenecking...and I have a pretty slow system.

 

H

simmerhead, did it made sense to you in some way?...

 

You should notice a difference, but not a big one.

For what it's worth, I just went from a [email protected] with dual GTX275s to an [email protected] with GTX 680.

 

I run three screen with multiple undocked windows for my views and only use outside scenery as my cockpit is hardware, no need for on screen gauges.

 

Gained 8FPS in stock KDFW and 4FPS at FSDT KDFW.... Not a whole lot

Hello ppl,

I was totally disapponted when i realized that in KFJK with the lightweight plane i got 15 fps @ 3.0ghz, and same 15 fps @4.0ghz.

 

I think i will give up trying to make out the best from FSX. It is a challenge full of nonsenses and conflicts.

 

By the way, cpu is QX9650......

 

I dont see how that is possible.

 

I'm running a E8400 at 3.85ghz, 2GB ram at 1088mhz, a GTS250 OC 1GB and Win XP SP3 32 bit. Using your example of KJFK, with FSDT's KJFK, MegaSceneryEarth New York, 80% WOAI (300+ packages) and the PMDG 737NGX, I still get 25 FPS in the VC and 30+ FPS in spot view mode.

 

Although I am using DXT clouds, no auto or boat traffic and scenery and a/c shadows turned off. Plus MSE New York doesn't display much autogen, but still I would think with a simple a/c you should get more FPS that what I get using the NGX. Heck, even with UT night lights on I still get FPS over 20 in the same area.

 

Have you checked the stability of the overclock by doing some stress tests? Do you have every slider maxed and shadows, bloom and lense flare turned on?

 

From my experience in FSX over the past few years on my system, I dont see a huge correlation between video cards and FPS in FSX. I started with the same rig using an 8800GTS 512MB, then went to a GTS250 OC 1GB (using now) and a few months ago popped in a GTX 560ti 1GB. I ended up returning the GTX 560ti as it didn't make one difference in performance on my rig. Technically it should have since its a basically a much better/faster card, but I didn't see any difference on a one monitor setup.

3.0 to 4.0 no gain in fps that strange to me. Maybe check to see if the OC to begin with, but a 25% increase in in speed would get ya at least 15% to 25% more fps.

thats the point. people keep saying fsx is all about cpu.

i prefere to say fsx is all about luck...

 

i got a QX9650 (best 775 cpu ever, can be compared to i5) @ 4.1ghz

xfx 780i

gtx 295

8gig of ram

 

and i run at 15 fps in jfk with that damn lightstuffplane...

 

fresh install. no addons. followed most common tricks in cfg. settings mid-to-low.

and this is the maximum i can get after ONE MONTH of try-n-trial.

 

nonsense. i give up.

Ya gotta turn down sliders,We all do.

Did you disable turbo-boost for the CPU in the BIOS? (I think that chip has it?)

Also, double check using apps like Real temp that your CPU is actually running at 4Ghz while FSX is running...

There are certain scenery areas that will bog down virtually any system - that JFK/NYC area is one, Seattle is another etc. Did you try testing at a more "normal" location too?

 

Also, a Core 2 Quad is getting pretty long in the tooth - CPUs are 4 generations ahead of that now. The i5s and i7s are a lot faster at the same clockspeed as an old Core 2 was because of the better architecture.

You should see some difference but it won't be a lot. Try DX10?