• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral


  • Rank
    Member - 2,000+

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines
  1. I run at 3840x1024 and have never seen more than 0.9GB used by FSX with my Asus 770 2GB. Mind you, I only have in-game AA and AF set, which I find very acceptable. Higher AA/AF could make enough of a difference to warrant 4G VRAM at such resolutions.


    I caved in and bought a GTX 770 someone was selling on Gumtree (similar to craigslist) for half its new price. Was pleasantly surprised at the low end FPS boost it gave me in heavy weather/cloud situations of up to 50% in some cases. Noting that my FSX is now polluted with addons and tweaks, I ran a before and after FSXMark11 to see what difference the upgrade made as I play it. Major differences to the FSXMark11 required setup were resoluton 3840x1024, windowed mode, 80% Ultimate Traffic X commercial AI setting, cloud draw distance 90 nm. Hardware Configuration: CPU: Intel I5-4670K @ 4.5GHz RAM: 2x4GB 2400 (10-12-12-31-2T) HDD: SanDisk Ultra Plus SDSSDHP-256G 3 run average results were: GTX 460 (1GB) - 20/49/35.5 GTX 770 (2GB) - 25/66/48.5 I'm pretty pleased with that result at that resolution.
  3. Just upgraded from a 460 to a 770 on my i5 4690K @ 4.5GHz system. I was pleasantly surprised that it boosted low end FPS quite significantly in heavy weather/cloud scenarios by about 50%. I'm now seeing not less than 25 FPS at full TH2GO resolution (3840x1024) with complex add-ons pretty much everywhere. Average FPS is around 50. At last, FSX is as smooth as FS9 was on my previous rig, and about 10x prettier!
  4. For those thinking 20%+, keep in mind that the 3.5 for the 4770K with intel boost enabled is actually 3.9, so the overclock to 4.5GHz is only a 0.6GHz increase, not a 1GHz increase as you may be thinking. Even if you FSX scaled perfectly with clock speed, the BEST FPS increase achievable would be 15% (ie. 4.5/3.9 - 1). The reality is about a 50% return for Haswell overclocking, hence my seemingly pessimistic 7% estimate.
  5. I've been running FSXMark11 at various overclock settings on my 4690K (same base clock as 4770K of 3.5HGz and boost of 3.9GHz). I can confirm that my FPS only increased by 7% by clocking up from 3.9GHz (the boost speed) to 4.5GHz (the overclock speed). This is consistent with what I stated earlier in this thread that you will only get about half of the % increase in clock speed, which was 15% in this case. While this result is a little disappointing, the great news is how well the 4690K, and likely even better the 4770K, performs in FSX at stock speeds. You should be looking at around 30 FPS minimum in FSXMark11, which is a very good starting point before addons take their FPS toll.
  6. The answer is very much dependent on FSX settings. In the FSXMark11 thread, Charlatan posted scores for his i5 4670K @ 4.2 and 3.4GHz showing about a 50% return per % overclock on average FPS achieved for the Haswell CPU architecture. On that basis, you can expect roughly a 15% average FPS boost going from 3.5 to 4.5GHz in that benchmark.
  7. Sounds like Intel Turbo Boost at play. What are your BIOS settings for this feature?


    Thanks for the feedback Ted. My Q6600 system was on its last legs, with memory no longer working in two of the memory slots and one clip broken on the CPU HSF (leading to imbalanced core temps), so it was definitely time for an upgrade. I am still considering a GPU upgrade, but so far my min FPS requirement at max resolution is being met, even with my FSX add-ons installed. While I can definitely notice the difference between AA/AF being on or not, I can't really tell the difference at between lower and higher levels so I am just running with the in-game options enabled at this time. The highest video memory usage and GPU load figures I have seen like this is 800MB and 40% respectively, so it seems there's is still enough life left in the GTX460 yet. Since posting yesterday, I've overclocked a little higher to 4.6GHz and have brought my uncore up from 3.5GHz to 4.6GHz to match, which should yield a slightly higher FSXMark11 result. As I have installed all my FSX add-ons, I will not be able to run a baseline FSXMark11 again, but I might do one to compare before and after overclocking with my current FSX configuration just for my reference. More importantly, my FSX experience is now much closer to what I've always wanted. I can now load up a complex aircraft at a major airport with some heavy weather going down and still achieve a relatively smooth flying experience. Although FSXMark11 doesn't specifically measure HDD impact, the switch to an SSD has significantly improved FSX playability at lower FPS. Pauses and stutters have virtually disappeared!


    Upgraded my computer yesterday to an i5 4690K with Intel TS13X water cooling and 8GB RAM. It overclocked quite easily to 4.5GHz @ 1.2V and sub 70C temps under Prime95 full load, which I am very happy with for now. I kept the GTX460 for now out of morbid curiosity as to whether I can pull similar min frame rates in FSXMark11 as most folks with similar CPUs but with faster video cards. I don't really care about FPS over 30 and in my experience FSX is CPU bound in the lowest FPS situations anyway. Anyhow, here's my FSXMark11 result for a clean install. Again, resolution is 1600x1024 due to TH2GO display setup limitations. Hardware Configuration: CPU: Intel I5-4670K @ 4.5GHz RAM: 2x4GB 2400 (10-12-12-31-2T) GPU: Gigabyte GTX 460 OC 1GB HDD: SanDisk Ultra Plus SDSSDHP-256G FSXMark11 Results: Test Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg 2 13028, 300000, 29, 54, 43.4 3 13576, 300000, 31, 56, 45.3 4 13433, 300000, 32, 55, 44.8 AVG 13346 300000, 31, 55, 44.5 FWIW, a second test run @ 3840x1024 windowed (ie. how I will use FSX) yielded 26/43/34 ie around a 15% drop in lowest FPS. Given my original goal with upgrading was to see 25-30 FPS min, I'd say mission accomplished!


    I've been away from FSX for a while and am getting ready to upgrade to a new rig for FSX/FS9. I thought I'd run FSXMark11 on a near fresh FSX install on the computer I am currently using for study, namely an 8 year old Q6600 rig, and see how far behind the curve it now is. The following results will make most of you feel much better with your current systems!: Hardware Configuration: CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz RAM: 2x2GB 800 (5-5-5-18-2T) GPU: Gigabyte GTX 460 OC 1GB HDD: SanDisk Ultra Plus SDSSDHP-256G FSXMark11 Results: Test Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg 2 4262 300000 5.0 22.0 14.2 3 4264 300000 8.0 21.0 14.2 4 4280 300000 8.0 21.0 14.3 AVG 4269 300000 7.0 21.3 14.2 Note resolution used was 1600x1024 due to limitations of my current TH2G display setup. FWIW, I am looking at getting an i5-4690K and overclocking to over 4GHz, a GTX 770 4G video card and 8G low latency 1600MHz or faster memory. I'll bring the Sandisk SSD over to the new system as load times are already fast enough with it on the old rig. I'll be running 3x1280x1024 via TH2GO and a secondary 1280x1024 display. Based on results I have seen in this thread, I'm hoping to see min FPS on the new system at full TH2GO res exceed max FPS on my old system at test res in FSXMark11. ie. if I can get 25-30 FPS min, I will be a happy chappy!
  11. That's my winter's night flight cockpit heater so that it just heats me rather than the whole house up. One 500W bar usually does the trick, but there's a second one there in case temps drop notably under standard ISA conditions.
  12. Here's my system, consisting of:i7 950 @ 4.0GHz6G Corsair Dominator DDR3 1600MHz RAM (3 x 2G matched)Gigabyte GTX460 1GB OC video cardGigabyte X58A-UD3R motherboard1TB WD 7200 RPM HDDDVD/CD burner1.44 MB FDD (not connected, just there for nostalgic purposes!)Corsair H50 watercooling kitThermaltake 775W Toughpower XT Power SupplyWindows 7 Home Premium 64Matrox TH2G 4 x 19" LCDs @ 3840 x 1024 + 1280 x 1024TrackIR 4CH Yoke and Pedals

    Your age?

    Crikey! 40 now and climbing! :-eek :-hah Gary
  14. Maybe not double, but certainly somewhere between 1.5x and 2x the the performance of your current system. If talking FS9 only, then an E6750 will be more than adequate.Gary
  15. For FS9, an 8600 or a 9600 will do just fine, even with AA/AF levels cranked up high. FS9 is not very taxing on video cards.Gary