18 minutes ago, Luke said:

How about the driver? 355.82 is 2+ years old.

Cheers!

Before I installed latest version of driver and tried, but result was same..

Later for installing a fresh copy of FSX,  I over-write my system from my previous Norton Ghost backup image file., so driver is old version in this video.

But I tested it, so I can say that problem was not related with version of driver.

On 2017-9-19 at 7:37 AM, Luke said:

FSX is one of the least GPU-intensive games out there. This is why even with a GTX760 I couldn't overwhelm my GPU even at 2560x1440.

Most games of that era were built like that. Not very graphically demanding outside of resolution or AA. Very simple shading compared to today's games. 

On 2017-09-19 at 9:37 AM, Luke said:

FSX is one of the least GPU-intensive games out there. This is why even with a GTX760 I couldn't overwhelm my GPU even at 2560x1440.

Go fire up nVidia Inspector and watch the GPU and MCU loads in real time when running FSX. The GPU load is unlikely to exceed 50% and I'd be shocked if the MCU load exceeds 25%. Look at data. It gives much more reliable results. :)

Cheers!

A few years back Nick Needham over at simforums ran several tests showing that lower powered video cards with high power CPUs would affect performance in fsx. 

You did not need usage graphs or 3D mark results. The evidence was clear from the test results in terms of fps. 

http://www.simforums.com/forums/3dmark06_topic46244_post280558.html#280558

 

Conclusion:

 

"There is absolutely NO QUESTION here.. this is the same as someone who sticks a TI video card into a system and clocks the CPU to 4500+ the user has effectively bottlenecked that system and their performance drops. They may run a 3D test like this and see a high overall score and be fooled into believing that cheap card purchase was right!

 

This is why I have warned people for years about "too much CPU", clocking, and cheap video cards. The 780 is a beast but right now its had its abilities seriously lowered by clocking it down as low as I have, and, this also shows that if I was running a slower video card I would NOT want Haswell running above a certain speed, as the test results above shows this 780 cut down had the best overall 3DM06 score increase @ 4.5GHz  (+957pts). A cheap card would probably start to choke at 4.1 and higher."

 

6 hours ago, GHarrall said:

The evidence was clear from the test results in terms of fps. 

http://www.simforums.com/forums/3dmark06_topic46244_post280558.html#280558

Unless I'm reading the post you linked to incorrectly, he didn't use FSX for these tests, he used 3DMark and the post didn't include any actual FPS figures. 3DMark loads both the CPU and the GPU and gives an overall performance figure - good 3DMark results need a decent balance of CPU and GPU. It was not a direct test of how the components would perform in FSX (which is much more biased towards the CPU) and a good 3DMark performance does not necessarily equate to good FSX performance. Because there are so many configurable elements to FSX, it's possible to get acceptable performance with quite a low power GPU at lower resolutions like Full HD. The only way to determine if your CPU or your GPU is the bottleneck is to run FSX with a monitoring app like Afterburner and look at the percentage load on each component. If one component is always at, or near, 100% then that's what's limiting you. You only need to look at the number of posts from people who complain that their new 1080 doesn't seem to have improved FSX performance at 1920x1080 compared to their old (insert old card model here) - at that sort of resolution the GPU only becomes a factor if you start to run unreasonable levels of AA with extreme texture resolutions.