Saw this posted in another forum and did the test on my machine, only to find 2 surprising bottlenecks, which I have addressed as much as I can.

It occurs to me to wonder if by running some comparisons, we might locate some commonalities indicating reasons for problems with MSFS.

Or not.

I figure it can't hurt to try.

Benchmarking Tool

My System Results

Plain Copy:

UserBenchmarks: Game 164%, Desk 102%, Work 154%
CPU: Intel Core i7-8700K - 92.2%
GPU: Nvidia RTX 2080-Ti - 177.6%
SSD: Samsung 980 NVMe PCIe M.2 1TB - 258.4%
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 500GB - 136.6%
SSD: Samsung 860 Evo 1TB - 133.8%
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 500GB - 137%
HDD: Toshiba X300 6TB - 68.4%
HDD: WD Black 1TB (2010) - 57.3%
HDD: WD WD10EACS-00ZJB0 1TB - 48.8%
HDD: WD Blue 750GB (2008) - 46.6%
HDD: WD Green 2TB (2011) - 52.2%
RAM: G.SKILL F4 DDR4 3200 C16 4x8GB - 103.1%
MBD: Gigabyte Z370 AORUS Gaming 5
 

well, here's mine - have no idea what it means though.

 

UserBenchmarks: Game 76%, Desk 94%, Work 60%
CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K - 88.1%
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1070 - 79.5%
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 500GB - 118.2%
SSD: Samsung 860 Evo 1TB - 136.5%
HDD: Hitachi HDE721010SLA330 1TB - 62.8%
HDD: WD Black 1TB (2010) - 52.9%
RAM: Corsair Dominator DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB - 101.1%
MBD: Asus Z170 PRO GAMING

40 minutes ago, Mike S KPDX said:

well, here's mine - have no idea what it means though.

 

UserBenchmarks: Game 76%, Desk 94%, Work 60%
CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K - 88.1%
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1070 - 79.5%
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 500GB - 118.2%
SSD: Samsung 860 Evo 1TB - 136.5%
HDD: Hitachi HDE721010SLA330 1TB - 62.8%
HDD: WD Black 1TB (2010) - 52.9%
RAM: Corsair Dominator DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB - 101.1%
MBD: Asus Z170 PRO GAMING

If you look on the page that pops up at the end of the test and scroll down, it will explain everything and walk you through exactly how you compared to others (where you exceeded and where you fell short and by how much) and what might need to be updated.

For instance, I noticed to my surprise that my nvme was actually for some unknown reason slower than some of my ssd's. This is making me take a closer look at that NVME and what might be wrong, and I'm also considering moving the flight Sim to one of the ssds.

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by HiFlyer

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

If you look on the page that pops up at the end of the test and scroll down, it will explain everything and walk you through exactly how you compared to others (where you exceeded and where you fell short and by how much) and what might need to be updated.

For instance, I noticed to my surprise that my nvme was actually for some unknown reason slower than some of my ssd's. This is making me take a closer look at that NVME and what might be wrong, and I'm also considering moving the flight Sim to one of the ssds.

But this seems to compare you to other PC's, not where the 'bottleneck' is within your own systems

8 minutes ago, Mike S KPDX said:

But this seems to compare you to other PC's, not where the 'bottleneck' is within your own systems

We may mean different things. When I say bottleneck, for me it's anywhere I fall significantly below other identical components in performance.

For instance, my 2080ti has a high score, but apparently could be much better. What am I missing?

My nvme is significantly underperforming compared to the same one on other peoples systems. Why? (I actually just transferred my packages/community folder to my fastest ssd, and loading times have now very noticeably improved)

Some of my non-SSD drives are seriously underperforming, apparently. I'm taking a closer look at them.

Etc.

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by HiFlyer

2 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

For instance, my 2080ti has a high score, but apparently could be much better. What am I missing?

Does it really compare to other 2080Ti's or simply to all tested GPUs? It seems to me that latter is the case, then it is no surprise that the 2080Ti does not reach the highest possible score. 

Besides that, I doubt that the tool "cpu userbenchmark" has GPU tests incorporated that allow serious positioning of your 2080Ti, for this you might run a 3DMark or comparable graphics benchmarks that do also take care about the special features of your GPU. 

27 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Does it really compare to other 2080Ti's or simply to all tested GPUs?

It does both. It's why I specifically left a link to my particular results so anyone interested could look through and see how detailed the report was.

34 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Does it really compare to other 2080Ti's or simply to all tested GPUs?

It does both. It's why I specifically left a link to my particular results so anyone interested could look through and see how detailed the report was.

https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/45369168

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by HiFlyer

Not sure how adequate this testing really is, but I like what I read, especially the last sentence 😉

"Overall this PC is performing way above expectations (86th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 14 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components. This PC is likely operated by a technical master!"

LOL

That test is totally irrelevant.

27 minutes ago, Nemo said:

"Overall this PC is performing way above expectations (86th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 14 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components. This PC is likely operated by a technical master!"

Nice 🙃

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

It does both. It's why I specifically left a link to my particular results so anyone interested could look through and see how detailed the report was.

https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/45369168

I still put a question mark behind those conclusions: if I read correct, it says the average bench out of over 200k using a 2080Ti is 173%, you get 178%, so I wonder how it deduces the "performing below potential". Seriously, use a 3DMark to assess the potential of a GPU, not this tool. 

Reminds me when we were kids, comparing our...... IQ.
😄

UserBenchmarks: Game 261%, Desk 108%, Work 316%
CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X - 104.5%
GPU: Nvidia RTX 3090 - 257.5%
SSD:  WDS100T1X0E-00AFY0 1TB - 358.4%
SSD: Samsung 850 Pro 1TB - 98.9%
SSD: Samsung 860 Pro 2TB - 99.8%
SSD: Corsair Force MP600 NVMe PCIe M.2 1TB - 265.2%
SSD: Samsung 960 Pro NVMe PCIe M.2 1TB - 262.7%
RAM: Corsair CMW32GX4M4Z4000C18 4x8GB - 139.6%
MBD: Gigabyte GA-X570 AORUS XTREME

 

3 hours ago, AnkH said:

I still put a question mark behind those conclusions: if I read correct, it says the average bench out of over 200k using a 2080Ti is 173%, you get 178%, so I wonder how it deduces the "performing below potential". Seriously, use a 3DMark to assess the potential of a GPU, not this tool. 

It says performance below potential and then gives you an overclocking guide. The conclusion after that is that the cards that are above that were likely overclocked.

I found the tool useful.

Here's is mine

UserBenchmarks: Game 187%, Desk 107%, Work 205%
CPU: Intel Core i9-10900K - 104.4%
GPU: Nvidia RTX 2080-Ti - 181.5%
SSD: Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 1TB - 346.6%
RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x16GB - 105.1%
MBD: MSI MPG Z490 GAMING CARBON WIFI