Haswell 4770K at MC $250

Asrock X3 $100

8GB 2xxxx CL9 $80

Nividia 670 GTX $300+

H100 or Noctua D-14 $100-120

GPU Usage:  100% @ 100% of the Time

CPU Usage:   Core 0- Flat Line (This is good since I don't want to use it)

                      Core 1- 100% @ 90% of the time (ouch)

                      Core 2-5 - 20% Load @ 100% of the time

 

 

The GPU and CPU are spiked out at max.    This would explain the crappy FPS around clouds and just in general.     I don't think this is normal opeartion is it?    The CPU is having to wait on the video card or vice versa.

 

 

UPDATE:   So I turned off the Frame Limiter in FSX, put it on Unlimited and used the external limiter I had used in the past just on a whim and now during my benchmark flight from KDAL the FPS never drops below 30.   IN fact, I watched it actually break past the 30 FPS limit to 35 FPS.    I shall do the dance of joy now.     *dances*    GPU usage was now it about 65% most of the time rather than spiked out 100% of the time.    Does FSX suck that bad at doing it's own limiting that is puts a stress on the GPU?   It doesn't make sense.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231638

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127754

 

http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/article/1000398/G.SKILL-TRIDENTX-8GB-2400C10-Dual-Channel-RAM-Kit-Review/0#axzz2dbD4QltR

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_780_lightning_review,1.html

 

Edit: Glad you got it where you wanted it, no need to upgrade, unless you want more out of it...

A complete taming of FSX, is like trying to travel at the speed of light.. the nearer you get, the engery and cost rise exponentially..

 

 

IOW.. All things equal; the jump from 10 to 20fps = $1000... from 20 to 30pfs = $3000... from 30 to 40 = $6000... etc

 

 

Theoretically, there is not enough energy in the universe to accelerate the tiniest piece of matter to the speed of light.. and there isn't enough money in a simmer's budget, to tame FSX.. LOL

 

 

Great story, BTW

So I entered a REX generated cloud bank on my way up to 15k on my latest benchmark test and whilst inside the belly of the beast my frames did go from 30FPS (locked limit) to 11 FPS... @_@   What are these clouds made of?  Kryptonite!?

 

I am running 1024 clouds, 1024 water.   My clouds are set for DXT5 Optimization and the water is set for DXT1.   I have DX10 optimization on Water animations and Sun/Flare Textures.   My cloud draw distance is set to a wimpy 60nm in the sim.     I am using type 63 clouds.     

 

I am so close to spanking this beast to where I want it.    Now I feel like it's just the clouds punishing me.    Is Zeus himself laughing from on high!?    WHY REX!?  WHY!?    Other than FSX sucks at rendering clouds.     I need to plug my FSX into the Monolith from the movie 2010... but I bet even that alien machine of infinite computing power would weep under the strain.

What are you AA settings?

What are you AA settings?

 

Filter settings at this level are critical with "3x24" monitors...

 

You have to pay the piper sometime...

 

Take a breath, slow down, take each step one at a time.

What are you AA settings?

 

AA is on in FSX as you cannot use Inspectors override in DX10 Preview mode.   Antialiasing Setting is set to 4x MS and Transperancy Superampling is at 4x Sparse Grid.

 

UPDATE:   I shut off all AA just to see and my FPS stayed at 30 the entire time even after turning clouds up to 100 mile draw distance in a mostly cloudy take off... so...  my conclusion is...   REX Clouds HATE AA or my Video Card hates REX Cloud or the gaming gods hate me.     Now... to decide... do I want 100 miles worth of clouds with jaggies on my cockpit and plane or do I want 60mile clouds with smooth AA graphics and still taking a huge FPS hit when I fly through a few clouds?    It is a struggle truly.  You could cut yourself with the jagged edges of these diagnol lines in FSX.    I also installed the latest Beta drivers from Nvidia just to hope beyond hope but no change.

I'm still a bit baffled why someone builds a $5000 PC without a SSD. I mean, shouldn't that be a core element of every half-decent build?

 

Yep, you can invest 1/3 the cost of that system and get probbaly 115% the performance in FSX.

Me and my overclocked Q9450 chuckled all the way through the first post. We might burst into evil laughter upon our next approach into JFK on an overcast day at 12 FPS.

 

 

If you can attain more than 20 FPS at JFK/EWR/LGA or KORD while running 100% traffic on a very cloudy day, your system is just fine.

FPS in-flight on a clear day mean absolutely nothing.

+1

Actually I think your machine is fine (apart from dumping the SSD's) it's your expectations that need tweaking!

Think of owning and flying FSX as an apprenticeship, it's a bit like learning magic (or should that be magik) you need a good mentor, and someone who tells you to remove your SSD's is "not" the one!

Yeah! Big mistake getting rid of your SSDs. You should not believe everything you read on line, but I hope you believe this:

 

FSX requires the fastest CPU, GPU, and drives, but you will still have to tweak the sliders to avoid poor performance and OOM with certain add-ons.

Think of owning and flying FSX as an apprenticeship, it's a bit like learning magic (or should that be magik) you need a good mentor...

 

Yep

Tweaking fsx could be 4 credit course at community college.

Tweaking fsx could be 4 credit course at community college.

+1