Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Chicago, IL, USA

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines
  1. Hi everyone,Just wanted to update you all on some further testing. I discovered that the PMDG 747-8i was providing a 10-15FPS increase compared to other addon's and since all of my initial testing was conducted with the PMDG 747-8i, I did experience a more fluid flying experience when I initially installed FSX. However, after further testing with various addon's and FSX default aircraft, the performance is nearly identical to a 2600K processor at 4.8/5GHz. Therefore, I conclude that the assertions made by many of you, in that FSX does not utilize all of the processor cores are indeed valid. Lastly, regardless of whether 3 cores or 6 cores are active, the FPS remains the same.Jacob
  2. Will do..thanks Stephen! ;) +10000000 lol....thanks Dazz.. ;)
  3. Stephen,That makes sense; especially considering that many of you have been experimenting with various configurations as they relate to FSXMark2011. It will be interesting to see how other SB-E benchmarks compare with mine. Well, glad I could contribute to the community! I'll post some photos of my 600-GT build to this post, which should be further towards the bottom..Best,Jacob
  4. That's right...I noticed that in the settings. Another observation: Using the same FSXMark2011 settings on a 1920x1080x32 resolution, Ground Environment Extreme Enhanced North America, REX 2.0, and PMDG's 747-8i at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, I would achieve 20FPS parked on the runway with the 2600K at 5GHz. Whereas, the 3930K at 4.8GHz was idiling between 30-40FPS. Therefore, I reason that the 3930K is definitely an improvement over the 2600K. It will be great to compare my SB-E results to others as they become available. =) +1
  5. I know right!! LOL.....I can't explain it...perhaps Microsoft can...hehehehe
  6. First, here's an overview on my system specs: Intel Core i7 3930K 4.8GHz (HT enabled), 1344 Affinity Mask ASUS P9PX79 PRO ASUS ENGTX570 DCII (2 in SLI) 16GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM, 16GBs in Quad Channel (4GB per stick) 64GB Crucial M4 SSD (OS and productivity software on this only) 1TB 5400RPM Western Digital HDD (running FSX and games on this HDD) Cooler Master 1200w PSU (80 plus gold) Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit Sharp Aquos Quatronn 40inch LED 1920x1080 FSX w/Acceleration, GEXe, REX, PMDG 747x and 8i, MD-11, and 737 NGX. (all add-on's uninstalled for this test...that "sucked"..lol) here are my 5 minutes test results using default settings with no add-ons: Min Max AvgTest 1: 23 60 37.78Test 2: 22 62 47.323Test 3: 30 60 46.833Test 4: 29 62 46.613What's really intersting is that my average was about 5FPS higher using REX 2.0 and Ground Environment Extreme Enhanced (North America). Also, I experimented with various Affinity Mask's, such as 62, 63, 3549, 4095, and 2730, but 1344 gave me the best results as noted in the benchmarks above.Lastly, I've used many processors to test FSX, including most recently, Intel's i7 920/930, 950, 970, 990X; and from Sandy Bridge (SB) the 2500K, 2600K, and 2700K. Compared to SB, the 3930K "feels" more fluid at the highest [density] settings and eye-candy (e.g., flare, shadows, etc) at 1920x1080. Therefore, I don't believe the FSXMark2011 benchmark is [entirely] valid because the 3930K is superior to the 2600K at 5Ghz in demanding settings; at least in my experience. Perhaps there are tweaks I'm not aware of (?) that facilitate higher FPS, as some of the 2600K benchmarks on this website exceed my results; most notably due to higher Ram speeds and tighter timings.Here are the modifications I've made to my config file:[bufferPools]UsePools=1RejectThreshold=98304PoolSize=8388608HIGHMEMFIX=1AffinityMask=1344I hope this helps..and please feel free to contact me regarding any tips you'd like to shareBest,Jacob
  • Create New...