Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • 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 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.
  2. 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!
  3. 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!
  4. 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!

    Your age?

    Crikey! 40 now and climbing! :-eek :-hah Gary
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Hope you did a before and after FSXMark07 to show whether the upgrade made a difference in FSX?Gary
  9. An E8400 with a motherboard that will take everything else you already have will do the trick.Gary
  10. Mitch,You let your post sit for a whole 8 minutes in the hardware forum before bumping it, and now you are here. How about exercising a little patience and use the right forum, even if it does mean having to wait a few hours for a response?Gary
  11. Run my benchmark (FSXMark07, downloadable here at AVSIM) and see whether there is any difference with DDR2 speed. Most likely, the higher RAM speeds result in lower RAM settings, which negates FS performance. What are your findings?Gary
  12. I run hot and cold on my relationship with FSX. This week it is cold, as I seem to be suffering low FPS (ie. < 15) in medium complex scenarios and worse in high complex to the point where it is unplayable IMO (6 FPS). It was working much better a month ago before I moved back to Australia, so there is something that I need to track down, but it seems I spend more time tweaking and fixing of late than flying. FS9 has been like a rock through all this, so it is currently my prime sim.I'll tell you one thing though, the shifting wind issue in FSX is really getting on my goat. If the FS11 demo and subsquent release doesn't show a marked improvement in, and hopefully complete resolution of, this issue, then I'll pass on that one as well and I'll be getting another three years use out of FS9!Gary
  13. Actually, if not specified, affinity mask has defaulted to "use all available cores" in all variations of FSX to date - RTM, SP1, SP2. The AffinityMask setting is only needed to limit which cores are used.Gary
  • Create New...