Post your FPS! Comparison test.

[Pe11e 812]

This post will be useful to siimmers who want or plan to build a new rig.

 

So, I really want to know how many FPS you get in this exact situation. If you use tweaked DX10 with Steve's fixer, that's fine, post your FPS, good for comparison!

 

I'm using FTX Global and REX textures.

 

FSX.CFG - I don't use any bufferpool tweaks, only AffinityMask=14, HIGHMEMFIX=1, TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024, and WideViewAspect=True.

If these settings will affect FPS that much, I doubt highly.

 

- Default C172, straight VC view

- EGLL (Heathrow), Runway 9R, Stormy Weather theme, Summer 12:40PM.

- Graphics:  DX9, Single monitor (1680x1050 in my case), all checked except light bloom, unlocked frames, even in nVidia Inspector. What is the point of measuring FPS with locked frames?

- Aircraft: all checked except tooltips and aircraft casts shadows on itself

- Scenery: all maxed except water effects @ Low 2.x, ground scenery shadows unticked

- Weather: cloud draw distance 80mi, thermal vis: none, detailed clouds maximum density

- Traffic: everything on 0%!!!

 

----------------------------------------

Q9505 @ 3.5Ghz, GTX 560 OC, RAM 8gb @ 1660Mhz

----------------------------------------

FPS: 44-46

----------------------------------------

 

Thanks in advance for participating!

 

Cheers

[1mikel151 71]

Every system reacts differently to FSX, even with the same hardware, kinda pointless IMO. People need to stop obsessing about FPS and enjoy what they have.

[Pe11e 812]

I know that mate, I'm FSX tweak victim.
Just wanted to know what FPS to expect with different hardware with the above exact situation. Just for comparison, mostly related to CPUs. When someone have very good CPU and lower FPS that someone with the very similiar system, you know that his FSX is not tweaked, but still you can see what to expect.

[PigsInSpace 21]

Comparisons are useful, problem is way too many variables in FSX.

 

Too many random things going on in FSX that you would have to first turn all off so as to not skew the test numbers (AI, Weather, ATC etc...but for a rough idea, still a steep challenge as Filter settings, base add-ons (Different AG at same locations etc) all will affect outcome add object and terrain shadows, detail texture, mesh level, water level, bloom etc etc.

 

And you are right, like you said, if good hardware but is lagging, certain things are out of line -> and for that particular FSX installation, they are all so different from yours and my FSX install.

 

LIke the Drzewiecki-Designed New York X package using the Highres textures, full AG and object sliders can work, but you have to turn Auto AI completely off, (as well as object shadows) because there are just too many streets to run that traffic (I wonder what the power draw is in real life just for the stop lights alone!).

 

Best I could muster but with a decent Haswell and old 670 GTX using AAx32 in DX9 was 22-29, but that was after also after turning off those settings, before that it was in the teens and very low 20's.

 

All the best mate.

[woodhick 504]

Every system reacts differently to FSX, even with the same hardware, kinda pointless IMO. People need to stop obsessing about FPS and enjoy what they have.

 +1 No!!  +312!!!  Useless.   Don't flame, I'm not going to waste my time clicking the "follow" button.

[JimmiG 244]

My FPS tends to be between 1 and 999, depending on where I fly, how I set things up etc.

[SolRayz 392]

The only way we could really compare hardware.

 

Clean default fsx.cfg

Same default plane

With a predetermined flight plan for XX amount of time

 

No addons

 

Gonna be tough getting good results without those conditions unfortionately.

[pete_auau 1,152]

And  as long  as they got  the same  hardware,  and the list goes on

[SolRayz 392]

Well I think the point would be to stress our hardware using the same test to compare results.

[Pe11e 812]

Well I think the point would be to stress our hardware using the same test to compare results.

 

Exactly. That's why I posted settings for the test situation.

[JSkorna 137]

Well I think the point would be to stress our hardware using the same test to compare results.

Never going to happen and a total waste of time.

[dolph98 24]

29 (Locked via nVidia Inspector).

 

I sure do love these threads.

[Bobu 0]

I have sort of stopped caring about FPS. With my new rig the experience is smooth regardless of what the FPS counter shows. It is all about smoothness. I stopped obsessing about the number.

 

The 4770k + GTX 770 totally rocks. 

[magnetite 38]

My rig stays between 30-40 FPS (w/PMDG 777). I use DirectX 10, as well as triple buffering (extra VRAM used for more smoothness). It's very stable, so I'm happy.

[Tomaz Drnovsek 440]

The higher your FPS are, the less you care. :wink: