I've recently upgraded from a Q9450 (OC'd to 3.5 GHz), X48-Board, 4GB DDR3 RAM (OC'd from 1333 to 1750 MHz) and OCZ Vertex 2 (SATA3) to a i5 4670K (turbo enabled), a Z87 board and a SanDisk SATA3 SSD. Recycled my RAM and was able to squeeze 2000 MHz out of it (at lower voltages to boot!).

 

The difference that four years of technology improvement, three quad-core CPU generations, triple memory bandwidth, higher clock efficiency and lower latencies make is awesome!

 

 

Performance in FSX has improved considerably. I get constantly higher FPS, less dips and more smoothness, even at large airports with AI sliders at 100%. Loading times are shorter, texture reloads are faster...woah!

I didn't even consider my old system to be all too bad, but this is the probably biggest jump I've seen so far (went E6600 OC -> Q9450 OC -> DDR3 -> SSD before) and I've been with FSX for seven years now.

 

 

The only thing still beffling me is that DX10 still runs worse than DX9.

But screw that, I don't need to worry about FPS anymore anyway! :lol:

Cool! Yeah that's an upgrade.

 

I went from an AMD6000 to my current 2500K @ 4.4 (now 4.2 OC failed grrr) and it was night and day

I jumped 2 generations, went from a Q9550 @ 3.4 to a i5 3570K @ 4.3.

 

The difference in FSX is stellar! Rock steady at 30fps in any condition. Smooth as silk!

Of course I try not to be too greedy at the settings, and applied all the important tweaks.

 

I kept the GTG560ti as I find it great for FSX, in contrast to P3Dv2..

I jumped 2 generations, went from a Q9550 @ 3.4 to a i5 3570K @ 4.3.

 

The difference in FSX is stellar! Rock steady at 30fps in any condition. Smooth as silk!

Of course I try not to be too greedy at the settings, and applied all the important tweaks.

 

I kept the GTG560ti as I find it great for FSX, in contrast to P3Dv2..

 

Very similar upgrade here too. I was on Q9505 @ 3.5ghz, upgraded to i7 i3770k @ 4.5ghz on a Z77 board. Kept RAM 8gb @ 1333mhz and GPU GTX 560. Difference in DX9 mode is unbelievable. FPS is around 2.5x higher, and texture loading is much faster.

 

I'm currently in DX10 mode with the fixer, it's smooth of course, but FPS is much lower than in DX9 mode. Test situation results, DX9 - 190fps, DX10 - 80-90fps! I'm not really sure why FPS is over 50% lower in DX10, I must investigate that and maybe post a question in DX10 thread. Clean Win7 and FSX install. Tested DX10 without AA, not using inspector for now, only created profile in nvidia control panel.

I'm currently in DX10 mode with the fixer, it's smooth of course, but FPS is much lower than in DX9 mode. Test situation results, DX9 - 190fps, DX10 - 80-90fps! I'm not really sure why FPS is over 50% lower in DX10, I must investigate that and maybe post a question in DX10 thread. Clean Win7 and FSX install. Tested DX10 without AA, not using inspector for now, only created profile in nvidia control panel.

 

I'm a bit glad that I'm not the only one with this "issue" (if one can call it that).

I think my GPU is a bottleneck. It's well known that in DX10 GPU do much more work than in DX9 where CPU practically do 95% of the job.

 

Check my thread in DX10 subforum.

get the dx10 fixer, and their a lot of people that can help you out over their, plus in the pinned area they have a how to doc.

I think my GPU is a bottleneck. It's well known that in DX10 GPU do much more work than in DX9 where CPU practically do 95% of the job.

 

I don't think that this is necessarily true. Might need to hear statements of users with weaker GPU than ours (GTX570 for me) before being able to jump to this conclusion.

 

Maybe it's our FSX settings or something.

I run the FSX internal AA and AF. With cockpit shadows and other special effects requiring post-processing in DX10, it could very well be that the AA/AF algorithms in said mode drag down performance.

Also, most DX9 users run fairly high AA/AF set externally with NVidia Inspector and overriding the stuff in FSX. IIRC, DX10 requires enhancement of FSX-internal AA/AF.

So basically, you might have your performance impact right there.

I don't think that this is necessarily true. Might need to hear statements of users with weaker GPU than ours (GTX570 for me) before being able to jump to this conclusion.

 

Maybe it's our FSX settings or something.

I run the FSX internal AA and AF. With cockpit shadows and other special effects requiring post-processing in DX10, it could very well be that the AA/AF algorithms in said mode drag down performance.

Also, most DX9 users run fairly high AA/AF set externally with NVidia Inspector and overriding the stuff in FSX. IIRC, DX10 requires enhancement of FSX-internal AA/AF.

So basically, you might have your performance impact right there.

 

I tested DX10 without AA, shadows, nvidia inspector, etc, got same result.

I tested DX10 without AA, shadows, nvidia inspector, etc, got same result.

 

Hm.

 

Oh well, if DX10 is slower, so be it.Without tooltips it's not that practical anyway.

The question is DX10 installed. I believe win7 comes with DX11. Need to get web installer from microsoft and let it install missing files.

Another thing I noticed, maybe it is strongly connected with DX10 - after loading a situation, C172 at Aerosoft Munich - 65fps, took off, flew for 15 minutes, fps stayed 60-70fps - on final approach  on this payware Airport, fps was above 50-55, so practically there wasn't any drop of performance at all. Maybe my GPU is a bottleneck, but minimum FPS tends to stay above 50 all the time, so I don't care anymore about maximum fps.

At least I don't worry about FSX performance for the first time in my life! I would never say thet i7 @ 4.5ghz would be an optimal choice for 7 year old simulator, jeez.

The question is DX10 installed. I believe win7 comes with DX11. Need to get web installer from microsoft and let it install missing files.

Errr no, it's backwards compatible. You don't need to install dx10 if you have Dx11

Congrats!now that you satisfied with your frames,here it begins the oom and VAS usage pains

Congrats!now that you satisfied with your frames,here it begins the oom and VAS usage pains

 

I hate to disappoint, but I always have 500MB+ of VAS available in peak situations.

 

It pays off to keep FSX lean, clean and within bounds.