2500k at 4.8

I should also point out that I have a lot going on in my sim.  ORBX Global, Vector and LC, ASN, REX textures, heavy airport scenery and the PMDG 777.  So to say the graphics look fantastic but at slightly reduced framerates I think is normal.

Yeah me too, but im running avg. 25 fps on ground non stutter in DX9 with 560 Ti and a clock speed of 4.5, which is why I would expect you to run higher at DX10

 

But ofc there is some reason.. maybe you are using 4k textures? I have max setting at 2048

I have really cranked up the graphics options (AA etc) and have not noticed any further drop in framerates and the video card is running at a maximum of 50%.  Little artifacts I had with my old card are gone (squares, stange clouds in the distance during heavy cloud cover) and stutters/pauses are greatly reduced.  I just flew the Q400 with FS2Crew from FSDT Vancouver to Fort St. John and back....I don't think there was one stutter.  Weather was terrible with snow, rain, fog and everything looked fantastic.  Still need to do a bit more experimenting to see if there is anything specific I can do to get the frames up to 30 on the ground.

Well thats great

Anyway I suspect that your video card topping out at 50% could be something acting as a bottleneck like chipset, or CPU (or even FSX.. lol)

 

But I guess you are secured for the next two years GPU wise either way..

 

I checked a few prices and the GFX is easily 50% of the cost of an upgrade, so you might want to consider chipping out on a z97/4690k system

 

Anyway my two cents mark

 

Quick edit:

 

I probaly wouldn't do it before/if making a shift towards running p3d due to the poor optimization of FSX

I've got a 4790k at 4.5Ghz and I can drop to 18fps at very busy airports when taxiing but I don't think this is anything abnormal.

 

Approaches are fine for 25-30fps...are you both talking about the same scenarios?

 

There's a video on Youtube of someone with a 5ghz 4790k and RAM at C8 2400mhz. Yes it looks fantastic but even that struggles with a lot going on out of the window on the ground.

 

I don't think a PC exists that could run FSX day to day never dipping below 30fps. Would love to see a nitrogen cooled 8ghz (or whatever the record is) 4790k running FSX with the fastest RAM possible.

 

I think if I could get to 5ghz and knock my RAM latency down from C11 I would see improvements but as long as takeoffs and landings are nice and smooth, I'm happy.

Framerates on even the most powerful PCs are not going to be stellar if you are running high resolution, super detailed addon airports, payware planes, scenery, weather utilities, and AI packages. Anyone who says that they get 50fps with all of those active at the same time is talking nonsense. A figure of 20fps is more realistic.

2500k at 4.8

 

That CPU is almost 4 years old and discontinued hardware!

 

http://ark.intel.com/products/52210

The i5 2500k is still a very powerful piece of kit. If the motherboard and GPU in my old PC had not failed three months ago, I would still be using one myself. PC technology advances have become incremental over the past few years (as opposed to revolutionary), so that four year gap doesn't equate with quite as much of a power and speed increase as you might think, particularly when it comes to FSX and P3D.

Yes a 2500k at 4.8 is surely worth a stock 4770k in performance?

No plans to upgrade MB and chip for at least a year or two (unless something fails).   

The i5 2500k is still a very powerful piece of kit. If the motherboard and GPU in my old PC had not failed three months ago, I would still be using one myself. PC technology advances have become incremental over the past few years (as opposed to revolutionary), so that four year gap doesn't equate with quite as much of a power and speed increase as you might think, particularly when it comes to FSX and P3D.

 

Then tell me why people jumped on the upgrade wagon to Ivy and now Haswell?

 

Was/is that a waste of money?

Then tell me why people jumped on the upgrade wagon to Ivy and now Haswell?

 

Was/is that a waste of money?

Sandy to Haswell is probably worth it. Ivy to Haswell isn't.

 

Is it worth a 20% increase for the cost of an extra CPU minus selling cost?

 

Lots of people upgrade because they like having the latest stuff.

 

I upgrade when I need to.

I think there is some advantage to wait for the next chips (Skylake?).  Intel confirms good thermal paste used between ship and metal casing.  Plus you can hope they are really good overclockers like the i2500 and i2700 chips.

 

Then tell me why people jumped on the upgrade wagon to Ivy and now Haswell?

 

Was/is that a waste of money?

 

Because some people have more money than sense. There is no way that I would have upgraded from an i5 2500k @ 4.3Ghz powered PC to my current one if I hadn't been forced to because of the motherboard/GPU double failure. The increase in performance really isn't worth forking out nearly a thousand quid for. Some people will quite happily splash out 500 quid for a new graphics card, but I rarely want to go above 200. The price/performance ratio drops off dramatically at the top end of the pile, but evidently enough people grab hold of the "latest and greatest" to make the industry work. I guess I should be grateful for that!