i just upgraded my Q9550 OC 3.4GHZ and Gigabyte mb to a i5-3570, non-OC and ASROCK Extreme4 mb. 

 

Installed Win 7 64-bit, upgrades, Security Essentials, FSX and FSX SDK.  Added highmemfix, 1920x1200x32, WideAspect=True and set to run in windowed mode with the menu showing.  Frame slider set at unlimited.  No other changse made to FSX.

 

Weather is clear, date is august 1, 2013, time is 21:00 UTC, sitting for at 34 for takeoff from KSEA, engines off.

 

Started up FSX and getting about 34-36 FPS looking forward sitting in the cockpit.  Left, right and rear I get about 60 fps.

 

I didn't expect the world, but this is only a couple more frame that I was getting with the Q9550.

 

It makes me wonder what overclocking to 4.2 GHz is going to give me.

 

Ernie

Hi Ernie.

 

May I respectfully suggest you forget entirely about frames per second. Chasing them will only cause you grief and anxiety and spoil your simming experience. Instead we should all strive for smoothness and in all conditions.

 

Trust me once that is achieved you will be a happy camper. If you haven't already seen it I recommend you read Nick N's 'Bible' thread on another site ... Google is your friend.

 

Blue skies.

Anything over 20 FPS should yield a stutter free sim. There is nothing different visually, between 35 and 60 FPS. Compromises still have to be made with FSX settings on PC's screaming at over 5 Ghz. If able to stay over 20 FPS in every situation (which I can't with my setup), I'd turn off the FPS counter and enjoy your flight! Regards.

Up until very recently all movies were shot at 24 fps. Video for TV is shot at 60 fps, but only to cut down on motion blur. The human eye can't really discern improvements above 30 fps, so chasing the frame rate is more of a geek endeavor than one that benefits image quality.

Stable fps most important than getting addicted to fps counter. Above 20 fps is still pretty good and 30 is great, and anything above 40 fps unnoticeable to most eyes. Just shut fps counter off and reduce settings.

Up until very recently all movies were shot at 24 fps. Video for TV is shot at 60 fps, but only to cut down on motion blur. The human eye can't really discern improvements above 30 fps, so chasing the frame rate is more of a geek endeavor than one that benefits image quality.

Human eye can see difference between 25, 30, 60 and even 120 fps easily. You cannot actually measure it in that way because human eye works so different than camera.

It makes me wonder what overclocking to 4.2 GHz is going to give me.

 

1.24 times your current frame rate or 42 FPS min instead of 34. FSX scales almost linearly with CPU clock speed.

Anything over 20fps is perfectly fine for me. At the end of the day, the lower the framerate that you can accept, the more detail you can have at your favourite airport :wink:

Thanks guys.. I've pretty much accepted that smoothness will be the standard and FPS just something that is.

 

I've been slowing incorporating my add-ons to see the results at the current processor speed. 

 

Once I've got everything adjusted the way I want, I'll back everythign up and start with the OC. Probably just 10% first, to see how temps, etc.go.  If that looks good I'll make the next jump.

 

I do miss my old Gigabyte board.  Set the bus speed to 400 MHz, Leave the temps on Auto and instant 20% OC with no effort.  The ASRock Extreme4 is a bit more complicated.

 

Ernie

Anything over 20 FPS should yield a stutter free sim. 

 

I agree with this for standard users, but for those using TrackIR, 20FPS is not smooth, as noticeable stutters occur with head movements around the cockpit.    The minimum frame rate for a good quality experience with TrackIR, is 26 FPS in my opinion.

 

 

FSX scales almost linearly with CPU clock speed.

 

That is true for a given processor generation and manufacturer. Newer Intel processors may have the same clock speed as older ones, but they are still a lot faster.

I agree with this for standard users, but for those using TrackIR, 20FPS is not smooth, as noticeable stutters occur with head movements around the cockpit.    The minimum frame rate for a good quality experience with TrackIR, is 26 FPS in my opinion.

I'm generally above 26 fps with my Track IR, but there are suggestions online to both run TrackIR at high priority and also to use the TIR "Smooth" template for FSX/P3D rather than the default template. These suggestions supposedly reduce the possibility of flight sim stuttering.

Human eye can see difference between 25, 30, 60 and even 120 fps easily. You cannot actually measure it in that way because human eye works so different than camera.

I figured that if I made such a simplistic blanket statement that someone would respond  and question it. From the standpoint of image quality on a flight sim, it is pretty hard to see the difference. Here's an interesting article that show why the fps question is much more complicated than wondering "What the eye can see?":

 

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

 

Hawking monitors with higher frame rates is just another example of the electronics industry's marketing campaign to get people to buy new hardware. If you can see the difference at 60 or 120 fps, great. But I can't and most people can't either. I do a lot of video work as part of my job and I stand by the statement that the main benefit of higher frame rates is in shooting video and cutting down on motion blur. Frame rate chasing in video games is mostly a geek pastime. I find that I am always better off with sacrificing a few fps and using higher IQ settings that result in an image improvement that is detectable by the human eye.

 

I should add that the recent movie The Hobbit was shown at 48 fps and a lot of people claimed that it made them dizzy and gave them headaches:

 

http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails

^Everyone can see the difference under certain circumstances. You cannot just say that's not true like you did in your first post. :smile:

 

I agree with second post.

I agree with this for standard users, but for those using TrackIR, 20FPS is not smooth, as noticeable stutters occur with head movements around the cockpit.    The minimum frame rate for a good quality experience with TrackIR, is 26 FPS in my opinion.

 

Nail, head. Hit

Thanks guys..

 

I completed the OC a couple of hours ago and letting system stress test. 4.2Ghz for two hours and so far no problems.

 

It looks like I've got a hot core, but only enough to push it to 87° C.

 

Ernie