my 3960gtx680 is more than half as fast again as my 960gtx480

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

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

 

People do say that, I used to believe that a long time ago, but I have learned it's the complete PC, not just the CPU. Complete meaning, motherboard, RAM, video, CPU ... put a Ferrari engine in a VW, and it's still a VW ... try to accelerate and all that Ferrari engine torque will break the tiny little VW drive shafts. Same can be applied to computers - and I can assure it's not about luck.

 

If you are running Windows 7, have you ran a Performance Index? (Control Panel | System and Security | System | Check the Windows Experience Index) If you have not ran the test, run it and report back your scores (it'll rate CPU, Graphics, RAM, Hard Drive). That will give some idea of what your bottleneck might be. There are more elaborate testing tools, but those cost money, Window Experience Index is free and part of the OS.

You might get even more ideas and help if this was in the Hardware Forum, however, I can tell you that one of my pc's a couple years ago also had a dual core running 4.0 overclocked. I was using a GTX 480. Currently Im running an i7 980X with a GTX 660 OC at 4.4. The MB is also a gamer style ASUS. Thats not a big OC jump, however, I'm getting easily double the frame rates in most of the similar scenery areas. It does have a lot to do with a total system, not just one thing.

Its also very difficult to comment on comparisons since the settings in FSX plus the Nvidia settings and many Win7 settings all have a direct effect on frame rates and smoothness.

thank you all for the solidarity.

anyway i tried everythin i had to try, with no satisfing results.

lets go a little bit off topic for a moment:

is xplane better coded? is it fps friendlier than fsx?

 

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......

 

You should definitely see a reasonable increase in frame rate.

 

Could be a case of GPU bottlenecking

 

I used to un an i7 920 at 4GHz. Despite FSX being CPU bound, I noticed a very significant increase in performance when I installed a GTX580.

 

Now we run stuff like REX etc, it seems to me that the sim is somewhat less CPU bound than it was.

thanks martin.. but it still do not make enough sense to me.

you say that going from Cpu 3ghz to 4ghz "You should definitely see a reasonable increase in frame rate".

i didnt had any increase, but you agree with me that i had to see an increase anyway, despite of what kind of Gpu i got...

i mean...

gtx295 + cpu @3ghz = 15fps

gtx295 + cpu @4ghz = 15fps

 

if i upgrade gpu

 

gtx680 + cpu @3ghz = let's say, 40fps

gtx680 + cpu @4ghz = if there is any logic, always 40fps...

 

so the problem here is not the gpu i am using... it is the fact that there is no increase @4ghz of cpu.

No tweak affects fps more than the "buffer pool" one. Unless you have this one figured out, cpu upgrade wont help much. I run an i5-2500k at 4.5 and a 460 gtx. Without the buffer pool line, my fps are in the low teens. With the buffer pool line, my fps are always above 20 fps--with all sliders to the right, including AI, autogen, REX. A lot has been said about this tweak, so look it up and you'll see your frame rates jump up.

tc

I know it's not suggested in the tweakers guides but in my opinion what counts is pre-rendered frames and a default config. If I go to the GPU control panel and choose 1 max pre rendered frame, then try 2, then try 3, and depending on the memory available, try 4 I can see results. I just did that and while fps comes down, the steadiness on the eye improves. FSX looks like FLIGHT now whereby I can focus on buildings and count windows. On 1 pre rendered frame it is unsteady.

thanks martin.. but it still do not make enough sense to me.

you say that going from Cpu 3ghz to 4ghz "You should definitely see a reasonable increase in frame rate".

i didnt had any increase, but you agree with me that i had to see an increase anyway, despite of what kind of Gpu i got...

i mean...

gtx295 + cpu @3ghz = 15fps

gtx295 + cpu @4ghz = 15fps

 

if i upgrade gpu

 

gtx680 + cpu @3ghz = let's say, 40fps

gtx680 + cpu @4ghz = if there is any logic, always 40fps...

 

so the problem here is not the gpu i am using... it is the fact that there is no increase @4ghz of cpu.

 

Hi Alberto.You may be misunderstanding me. By overclocking from 3 to 4 GHz, it's actually a substantial increase in percentage terms. All my tests tell me that the relationship between percentage of clock increase and frame rate is pretty close to linear. Yes it's an older CPU architecture, but in my opinion you should still see an increase in performance.

 

What may be happening is that your 4 GHz overclock, is perfectly capable of generating higher frame rate, but unfortunately your substantially less powerful graphics card is holding back the CPU.

 

 

I can't claim this definitively, but that's my initial hypothesis.

 

It's a bit like having a 3 litre car engine, and then fitting an undersized exhaust pipe. Not an accurate analogy, but my point is that performance can be held back by other components in your system. "Matching" components sems to be advisable for FSX.

 

More things to check...

 

1. Is your OC stable? I've come across cases before where an unstable OC reduces performance. Is your CPU stable when stress tested?

 

Temperature: System running cool? Or is it overheating causing the CPU to throttle back?

 

3. Is your RAM configured properly?

...of course, you do need a fixed fps setting low enough to allow the time for the pre rendered frames.

...of course, you do need a fixed fps setting low enough to allow the time for the pre rendered frames.

 

Steve... an interesting tip there, in regard to pre-rendered frames.

 

Not something I've tested. Must give it a go.

19fps fixed and GPU set to 4 pre rendered frames, default fsx.cfg - no tweaks. Observe IF's smooth graded visibility from the shore of the Dead Sea to outer space.

First of all, steve and martin thanks for sharing your knowledge.

Well, about the 4ghz OC, yes it is stable with Prime95 stress tool. About ram settings, if you are talking about timings i left them default, everybody says that tuning the ram won't give you that boost.

About fixed frames and pre-rendered frames, i tryied almost everything, and best settings for me are two:

1 - from nvInspector: vsync 1/2 refresh rate, unlimited frames in fsx settings, and 2 prerendered frames.

2 - no vsync at all, unlimited framerate in app setting, 1 or 2 prerendered framerates.

 

with the first i get 30fps fixed (ofcourse because of the 1/2 of monitor's 60hz) in "lightweight" areas, but dropdown 10-11 at high density area.

with the second the increase in lighweight areas is not that much, about 38-40fps, but i can see a resonable increase at dense areas 19-20fps

 

anyway @ KJFK it is ALWAYS 14-15fps... no matter the settings......

 

i do not use bufferpools, and the FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION is default 0.33, because i tryed every settings for it and didnt notice ANY DIFFERENCE....

After one month of try and trial i can say that ANY TWEAK ADDED TO THE DEFAULT CFG IS A MYTH.

well said :ph34r:

...the thing about the fixed setting is it only works if your sim can maintain it. If you set 19 fixed and only see 17 then there is no pre rendered frames being made and no benefit from the setting, may as well set unlimited. The problem with unlimited (a test mode of DX, DX is designed to run pre rendered frames) is that there is always an inconsistent time between frames and makes rain and snow look odd.