"Holy FPS, Batman!"

[PhilTaylor 45]

See my new post "Holy FPS, Batman!" herehttp://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...fps-batman.aspxKey quote:Toms posted a OC CPU-GPU review on May 15th that included FSX-SP2 and shows a whopping 83.1 FPS at 19x12 with no AA,trilinear and Ultra Quality, and a still excellent 72.7 FPS at 19x12 with AA, Anisotropic and Ultra QualityI go into some more analysis in the rest of the post, and have links to the relevant Tom's articles. I think this is a must-read, both my post and the linked articles.

[n4gix 4,947]

Hot dog! I guess I need to break down and upgrade my HD1200 to an OC 8800 GT pretty soon... ;)

[Guest JIMJAM]

Another mine is bigger than yours.....I would trade 50 of that fps for some stability and more addons.I am one of those unfortunate ones who has the menu crashes and keeps his fingers crossed everytime I fly.Dependent apon Nhancer to get some aa/af if at all.Yeah I see the ocassional 50+ fps with moderate settings,1920x1050 res,FEX,GEX,UTX,MytrafficX, in a default good weather.However, throw in some weather or a city and I am lucky to see 15-20.Acceptable but forget using a complex a/c.Again, its not the FPS but the overall stabilty I am after.What would really make me angry :-newburn is if I copied one of these hardware sites or the gurus setups to the T and STILL have problems.With Nvidia changing drivers every month and a new card every 3, its a real mess.I am DONE chasing the FSX carrot and awaiting FS11.

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Phil,I wonder if you might take a moment and explain to the uninitiated why we would ever want 80 frames per second.Can the human eye even perceive more than around 30?The reason that I ask, is because I specifically limit FSX to displaying 24 frames per second, on the theory that I want the simulation to use my computing power to do other things rather than redraw my screen wastefully ... things such as load texture ahead of me or recalculate mesh.Am I thinking about this incorrectly?Cheers,

[PhilTaylor 45]

its a benchmark of systems against each other. as such, showing the high-water mark shows where the variants stand against each other and that has value for people considering a purchase.as to the "value" of any particular result, that isn't really the point. its the whole, not the parts.

[PhilTaylor 45]

I believe, imperfections aside, that article shows:1)where 8800, 9600,and 9800 stand relative to each other.2)where CPU variants stand relative to each other.3)what an OC on both CPU and GPU can get you.and not everyone knows 3, much les 1 or 2. It is in that spirit I posted. Sorry if that is objectionable.

[ppo 67]

This is the best relationship CPU/GPU benchmark under FSX SP2 that I've read. A must read for everyone using FSX.Have a nice evening Phil,Pierre

[Mike T 208]

Kevin:It's not about the human eye seeing 80FPS, its about having 'overhead'. If you can run max settings with default FSX then when you pile on frame rate sucking addons and it sucks 30FPS out of your system, you still have 50FPS of sexy smoothness at your disposal.If you are only chugging along at 30 FPS and your addons suck 25 FPS out of that, you no longer have a Flight Simulator, you have an Etch-a-sketch Simulator.

[Guest chinga]

Hmmm...i don't get anywhere near those frames. See sigIntel E8400 @ 4.185ghz--1860 FSB4 gig Corsair Pc2-8500 @ 930mhz 4-4-4-12Asus Maximus motherboardXFX 8800GTS 640 mb 174.74 Drivers 675 core mhz..2100 mem..1500 shader2 74gig WD 10,000 rpm Raptors Raid 0Thermaltake 750watt Toughpower PsuAcer 22" Widescreen LCDWinxp 64

[Mike T 208]

Phil:Do you know what settings were used in FSX when this benchmark was done? I obviously need to fire up FSX because I destroy his 3Dmarks of his fastest system by over 6000 and I'm most interested in 80FPS with all sliders maxed! (see my sys specs below). My overclocks are about the same, 33%, and I can take her further if I wanted. (I've had a stable 5.2ghz on cryo.)Give me this, and I will personally guarantee a Fedex'd case of anything you drink!Regards,Mike T.

[Guest sillyeagle]

>>Can the human eye even perceive more than around 30?>Sure it can. Anyone who plays shooters knows that you need 60fps for smooth and accurate game play, which is the upper limit of what the eye can perceive. Most gamers would consider 30fps to be "unplayable", so they are surprised by the low framerate of something like FSX. Film captures motion blur so 24fps is fine for movies, but with something like a video game that does not capture motion blur, you need 60fps for total smoothness. Of course sim games are slow paced so you can get away with 25-30fps, but I certainly prefer 30+ for FSX.

[Guest bdg52]

Hi,Well, I think it is about time someone did these tests, but....I can get 100 fps if I keep my autogen, weather and of course use an AC that does not have a relatively complicated and heavy memory/CPU footprint low. I run a stock qx9600 with 4gig of ddr2 and an 8800 GT overclocked. But.... with my preferred settings (high) and addons FEX, GEX, 30% traffic GA and Heavies, 25% road traffic, minimal airport utility movement, Auto Gen Very Dense, water Mid 2, at KSEA and surrounding areas using a RealAir simulations AC I can maintain 24 fps and very smooth. So, I think that the test is a good reference, but I think the community really needs to know settings,addons and the like.This is where the rubber meets the road.BG

[Guest Nick_N]

>Hi,>>Well, I think it is about time someone did these tests,>but....>I can get 100 fps if I keep my autogen, weather and of course>use an AC that does not have a relatively complicated and>heavy memory/CPU footprint low. I run a stock qx9600 with 4gig>of ddr2 and an 8800 GT overclocked. But.... with my preferred>settings (high) and addons FEX, GEX, 30% traffic GA and>Heavies, 25% road traffic, minimal airport utility movement,>Auto Gen Very Dense, water Mid 2, at KSEA and surrounding>areas using a RealAir simulations AC I can maintain 24 fps and>very smooth. So, I think that the test is a good reference,>but I think the community really needs to know settings,addons>and the like.This is where the rubber meets the road.>>BGGood point ... although I think the idea was to show the overhead potential with the clock/core VS the cardAt the same time Tom left out the 8800GTX/s 640/768 384bit cards but included the the newer Nv offerings and then displayed compares to the very old ones so I think there is some missing information thereThe G80 GTX 768 384bit cards have as much if not more horsepower than the 9xxxx cards... one difference is the TMU's (Texture Memory Units) and even with that Nvidia is playing games with how many they enable in G92 as the newer cards are released even though they all have 64 So for the price and if I was upgrading considering the new next gen formats and Nehalem is right around the corner.. I would rather spend less money on the 384bit card which will give me nearly the same performance knowing I will be shopping again at the end of the year for next gen parts.Of course the SLi advantage with G92 is greater than with the G80 384bit cards, G92 when compared to the 768 384bit G80 card for a single card system is not that far of a leap in performance with FSX.. something Tom left out of that list. The proc is of course important and pairing up the right team is what the report was about even with the missing data

[Guest player1]

Yeah, great. :) But statements such as that the "DX9 version doesn't show sky and land reflections" was very inaccurate and doesn't bode well for trust in the numbers according to what ever settings, and real apples to apples facts. However it was encouraging.As for the high FPS, just remeber until we get blur etc. you need the high frames as motion picture 24-30 has blur in frames, Game does not. blah blah blah

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Yea, that was weird. Where'd that come from? First sentence in the article seemed to me to be inaccurate. Certainly set the tone in an unfortunate way.Also, anyone have any idea what the system used might cost a person?