FSX-MS Help me understand FSX performance...

[eslader 1,823]

I know there's a lot of topics on this all across the sim-internet, but I haven't found anything discussing this specifically (I'm sure it's out there, I just haven't found it).

 

I know that even if I got the computer off of the Starship Enterprise, FSX/FSXSE would not have totally smooth framerates at all times.

But what's confusing me is why, after looking at live performance measurements of my hardware components.

Flying over dense scenery (orbx ftx base & vector) like the LA area, I get definite stutters - sometimes I'm lucky to get up to 15fps, especially if I'm flying something intensive like a PMDG plane, even with HD cockpit off.

While that's happening, the processor gets to around 80%, the video card is around 40-50%, memory usage is very low (and VAS is between 2.6 and 3.5 gigs on FSX.exe, which is a significant percentage of 4, but still, there's half a gig left and that was pretty big ram-wise when FSX came out). The only potential bottleneck I can think of is the hard drive FSX is on, which is not an SSD but it is a fast physical drive, and you'd think once the scenery area was loaded that wouldn't be a factor anyway.

I'm ready and willing to upgrade hardware, but if I'm not maxing out the hardware I've got, is that even going to help?

 

Current specs: Core i5-4590 @ 3.3ghz, GTX760 with 2 gigs.

 

 

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

In a nutshell, I'm guessing your CPU is too slow for the graphics that you're asking it to process.

 

I ran FSX Deluxe and FSX:SE for many years with absolutely no performance issues whatsoever.  I only used ORBX Global and Vector, all large, high quality payware airports and high quality weather textures.  I did not run any of the ORBX regions.

 

 

[Bob Scott 7,779]

A couple observations: a 3.3GHz CPU isn't going to get you much past 15 fps.  FSX depends *heavily* on CPU throughput, and moreover CPU throughput on Core 0.  FSX is much more dependent on CPU power than P3D, because it does most of the heavy lifting--the graphics rendering work--with the CPU.  If you're not using DX10 in FSX with Steve's DXFixer, that is one good way to offload more of the workload to the GPU and improve performance (some).  P3D uses DX11 natively, which leverages modern GPUs much better.

That 80% CPU utilization is probably combined for all four cores.  The heart of FSX is the main thread running on Core 0, and I'd bet that core is running maxxed at 100% all the time.  That's why increasing the CPU clock speed helps--that Core 0 thread at 100% can do a lot more at 4.8 GHz than 3.3 GHz.

I wouldn't rebuild Rome hardware-wise for FSX today, though.  A combination of better hardware with software that can use it (P3Dv4) won't become nearly immediately obsolete.

Regards

 

[eslader 1,823]

P3Dv4 is definitely on the radar, but I figure any upgrade I make today won't hurt when/if I get p3d. 😉  I bet you're right that core 0 is maxxed out, which gives me a lot more confidence that an upgrade will be helpful. Thanks very much.

 

[VeryBumpy 272]

Your CPU a definite bottleneck, the higher the GHz the better. Your gfx card is also a possible bottleneck if you are running high res and/or high anti-aliasing.

[eslader 1,823]

Yeah, and I've been looking at options. I could upgrade just the processor, but that would be pointless because a significant ghz upgrade would require a ram upgrade from the current ddr3 2400, and *that* would require a mobo swap, so I'm kind of thinking I might just be looking at biting the bullet and doing a new build.

 

[W2DR 1,866]

New is the way to go..........

[eslader 1,823]

Already got the build spec done 😉 I'm just gonna hold off for a few weeks. With the 2000 series nvidia cards coming out, I figure the 1000 series should see significant price drops any time now.

 

[Dio 8]

9 hours ago, eslader said:

Already got the build spec done 😉 I'm just gonna hold off for a few weeks. With the 2000 series nvidia cards coming out, I figure the 1000 series should see significant price drops any time now.

 

Hi, In my opinion you should move to P3D. The reasons are

1) FSX has become (silently) obsolete, you will never get any updates because there is no development for FSX.

2) If you spend money for FSX addons you have to re buy most of them moving to P3D

3) P3D, performance wise, can use and take advantage newer hardware better than FSX(FSX is DX 9 compatible) plus it has 64 bit architecture so no more Out of memory crashes in hi density areas.

4) Check the minimum and the recommended hardware spec by visiting p3d site before buying a new PC to get an idea.

But the final decision is yours of course. Finally I can tell you i spent a lot of money buying add ons for FSX and now i have to spend a hefty amount of money to re buy most of them if i decide to move to p3d.

Regards.

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by Dio

[spilok 1,140]

64 bit flight simulation is your only savior.

 

Stan

 

Prepar3d 4.3

[eslader 1,823]

1 hour ago, Dio said:

Hi, In my opinion you should move to P3D.

I was never motivated to do so before v4 because I didn't see the point of moving from 32 bit to 32 bit. But an upgrade is in the cards. I've stopped buying any addons that can't be transferred for free to P3D in anticipation of that. But I'm thinking I'll do the computer upgrade first, then start worrying about upgrading sims, which will probably come about the time I finish my sim-pit which I have been tooling up to build over the summer. 

[VeryBumpy 272]

13 hours ago, eslader said:

 But I'm thinking I'll do the computer upgrade first, then start worrying about upgrading sims, which will probably come about the time I finish my sim-pit which I have been tooling up to build over the summer. 

Smart. You might find you are perfectly happy enough with FSX after your upgrades.

[cobalt 831]

On 8/22/2018 at 11:28 AM, w6kd said:

A couple observations: a 3.3GHz CPU isn't going to get you much past 15 fps. 

 

This kind of statement is meaningless in the absence of information on location, clouds, weather, aircraft and other specifics. I have an Alienware X51 3.4 MHz computer with an NVidia GTX-1060 video card, with extensive scenery add-ons such as UTX and GEX, and get generally excellent performance with frame rates seldom below 40 FPS except in the most demanding places such as Heathrow (which I seldom visit). In less densely populated (but scenery-rich) areas such as the Alps, Rockies, and rural Pennsylvania, for example, I often see FPS in excess of 100 with terrific scenery.

Claims about FPS without detailed info are basically useless.

[eslader 1,823]

I had specified 15fps flying over dense scenery like LA under Orbx base and vector in a PMDG plane with HD cockpit off. I would assume that influenced their responses. 😉

 

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

On 8/23/2018 at 7:54 PM, eslader said:

I was never motivated to do so before v4 because I didn't see the point of moving from 32 bit to 32 bit. 

Going from FSX to P3Dv4 is not going from 32 big to 32. It’s going from 32 bit to 64 bit which is what P3Dv4 is.